Re: stopgap fix for signal handling during restore_command

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: stopgap fix for signal handling during restore_command
Date: 2023-10-17 16:47:29
Message-ID: 2820645.1697561249@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... and it looks like some of the back-branches are failing for Windows.
> I'm assuming this is because c290e79 was only back-patched to v15. My
> first instinct is just to back-patch that one all the way to v11, but maybe
> there's an alternative involving #ifdef WIN32. Are there any concerns with
> back-patching c290e79?

Sounds fine to me.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maciek Sakrejda 2023-10-17 16:53:03 Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-10-17 16:45:52 Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location