On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 1:28 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 9:34 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> (Someday we oughta go ahead and make our Windows signal API look more > >> like POSIX, as I suggested back in 2015. I'm still not taking > >> point on that, though.) > > > For the sigprocmask() part, here's a patch that passes CI. Only the > > SIG_SETMASK case is actually exercised by our current code, though. > > Passes an eyeball check, but I can't actually test it.
Thanks. Pushed. I'm not brave enough to try to write a replacement sigaction() yet, but it does appear that we could rip more ugliness and inconsistencies that way, eg sa_mask.
