On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 December 2016 at 20:20, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> > >> basebackup.c: In function ‘throttle’: > >> basebackup.c:1284:8: warning: variable ‘wait_result’ set but not used > >> [-Wunused-but-set-variable] > >> int wait_result; > > > > Interesting. > > > > ff44fba4 replaced the latch in walsender, which was not backported (of > > course). > > > > But it also added a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS there. > > > > 9.4 does not have a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS anywhere near there. Perhaps > what's > > really needed is to put one of those in regardless? > > > > Yeah, it seems reasonable that there should be a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() > there. > > I'm not really familiar with that code, but it looks like the signal > handler in 9.4 might not set that latch, so throttle() would have to > rely on setting ImmediateInterruptOK to make the sleep interruptable, > in which case the wait result would be irrelevant, right? > Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. Looking it over again, yes, I think you are right, and will commit a patch that just removes the check for result. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
