Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> ISTM it would be cleaner to patch PG_SETMASK to have a second argument
> and to return the original mask if that's not NULL. This is more
> invasive, but there aren't that many callsites of that macro.
[ shoulda read your message before replying ]
Given that this needs back-patched, I think changing PG_SETMASK
is a bad idea: there might be outside callers. However, we could
add another macro with the additional argument. PG_GET_AND_SET_MASK?
regards, tom lane