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
