On 2017-01-26 19:36:11 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > 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.
Well, Robert today said >> "today" is a little quick <<. > Tomorrow is too late. Huh? We're not wrapping today/tomorrow, are we? If I missed something and we are, then sure, it makes sense to push ahead. > Replacing with a latch wouldn't be backpatchable, IMHO. Hm, don't quite see why - isn't it just like three lines? Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
