On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:48:10PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 5:50 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:03:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> > Perhaps beginning a new thread with a patch and a summary would be >> > better at this stage? Another thing I am wondering is if it could be >> > possible to test that rather reliably. I have been playing with a few >> > scenarios like holding the system() call for a bit with hardcoded >> > sleep()s, without much success. I'll try harder on that part.. It's >> > been mentioned as well that we could just move away from system() in >> > the long-term. >> >> I'm happy to create a new thread if needed, but I can't tell if there is >> any interest in this stopgap/back-branch fix. Perhaps we should just jump >> straight to the long-term fix that Thomas is looking into. > > Unfortunately the latch-friendly subprocess module proposal I was > talking about would be for 17. I may post a thread fairly soon with > design ideas + list of problems and decision points as I see them, and > hopefully some sketch code, but it won't be a proposal for [/me checks > calendar] next week's commitfest and probably wouldn't be appropriate > in a final commitfest anyway, and I also have some other existing > stuff to clear first. So please do continue with the stopgap ideas.
I've created a new thread for the stopgap fix [0]. [0] https://postgr.es/m/20230223231503.GA743455%40nathanxps13 -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
