On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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. Thanks again! Cheers Mike
