On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 23:50, Michael Harris <har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Do you want to try this and see if it actually adds any robustness with > > your buggy code? > > Sorry for the delayed response, & thanks for the patch. > > I wasn't able to test with our actual application because it could > take days for it to actually trigger the problem, so I tested it with > a simulation, which you can find here: > > https://github.com/harmic/pg_almloss
Thanks for writing a test case. Could you specify the licence of that as The PostgreSQL Licence, to allow it to be used as a permanent test case? We can add other misbehaviors as well, as needed. > With that simulation I could attach gdb to the backend and see that > signal_pending & signal_due_at were being reset in the expected way, > even when a missed interrupt was triggered. > > I'm convinced your patch improves robustness under the scenario we saw. Cool, thanks -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
