On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:10 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... One question I haven't > got to the bottom of: is it a problem for the startup process that CVs > use CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
This was a red herring. The startup process already reaches CFI() via various paths, as I figured out pretty quickly with a debugger. So I'd like to go ahead and commit these patches. Michael, when you said "That's pretty hack-ish, still efficient" in reference to this code: > - if (IsUnderPostmaster && !PostmasterIsAlive()) > + if (IsUnderPostmaster && > +#ifndef USE_POSTMASTER_DEATH_SIGNAL > + count++ % 1024 == 0 && > +#endif > + !PostmasterIsAlive()) Is that an objection, and do you see a specific better way? I know that someone just needs to write a Windows patch to get us a postmaster death signal when the postmaster's event fires, and then the problem will go away on Windows. I still want this change, because we don't have such a patch yet, and even when someone writes that, there are still a couple of Unixes that could benefit.
