On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 7:51 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 5:18 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Here's a draft patch that adds a minimal sigaction() implementation > for Windows. It doesn't implement stuff we're not using, for sample > sa_sigaction functions, but it has the sa_mask feature so we can > harmonize the stuff that I believe you were talking about.
Pushed. As discussed before, a much better idea would probably be to use latch-based wakeup instead of putting postmaster logic in signal handlers, but in the meantime this gets rid of the extra Windows-specific noise.
