On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-01-26 12:24:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Currently a waiting standby doesn't allow interrupts. >> > >> > Patch implements that. >> > >> > Barring objection, patching today with backpatches. >> >> "today" is a little quick, but the patch looks fine. I doubt anyone's >> going to screech too loud about adding a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call. > > I don't quite get asking for agreement, and then not waiting as > suggested. I'm personally fine with going with a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS > for now, but I think it'd better to replace it with a latch.
I have waited, so not sure what you mean. Tomorrow is too late. Replacing with a latch wouldn't be backpatchable, IMHO. I've no problem if you want to work on a deeper fix for future versions. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers