Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler?
Date: 2023-04-08 00:14:33
Message-ID: 3263529.1680912873@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 01:32:22AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I'm hoping to get just the regex changes in ASAP, and then take a
>> little bit longer on the recovery conflict patch itself (v6-0005) on
>> the basis that it's bugfix work and not subject to the feature freeze.

> Agreed. It would be good to check with the RMT, but as long as that's
> not at the middle/end of the beta cycle I guess that's OK for this
> one, even if it is only for HEAD.

Right. regex changes pass an eyeball check here.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2023-04-08 00:18:16 Re: monitoring usage count distribution
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-04-08 00:09:40 Re: Track IO times in pg_stat_io