Michael Harris <harmic@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > 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. Great, thanks for testing! regards, tom lane
