Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2022-04-09 19:34:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> +1. This is probably more feasible given the latch infrastructure >> than it was when that code was first written.
> What do you think about just reordering the disable_all_timeouts() to be > before the got_standby_deadlock_timeout check in the back branches? I think > that should close at least the most obvious hole. And fix it properly in > HEAD? I don't have much faith in that, and I don't see why we can't fix it properly. Don't we just need to have the signal handler set MyLatch, and then do the unsafe stuff back in the "if (got_standby_deadlock_timeout)" stanza in mainline? regards, tom lane