On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 05:20:38PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Is the problem here that SIGCHLD is processed ...
>
> PG_SETMASK(); <--- here?
>
> selres = select(nSockets, , NULL, NULL, );
>
> Meanwhile the SIGCHLD handler code says:
>
> * Was it the wal
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:20 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> (I don't know why you didn't make it 0)
(Oh, I see why it had to be non-zero to avoiding burning CPU, ignore that part.)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 2:08 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I discussed this a bit in a different thread [0], but I thought it deserved
> its own thread.
>
> After setting wal_retrieve_retry_interval to 1ms in the tests, I noticed
> that the recovery tests consistently take much longer. Upon further
I discussed this a bit in a different thread [0], but I thought it deserved
its own thread.
After setting wal_retrieve_retry_interval to 1ms in the tests, I noticed
that the recovery tests consistently take much longer. Upon further
inspection, it looks like a similar race condition to the one
