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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 00:05:10
Message-ID: ZDCvttL99nxgGkiw@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-04-08 00:09:40 Re: Track IO times in pg_stat_io
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2023-04-08 00:02:18 Re: Making background psql nicer to use in tap tests