Hello. Same function, different races, I think. Vitaly reports a missed wake-up where deadlock_timeout never fires (spurious SIGALRM from log_startup_progress_interval plus the lazy setitimer in 09cf1d52). This patch addresses the opposite, deadlock_timeout does fire, but LockBufferForCleanup loops back and re-arms it, so the signal repeats once per second.
The two fixes do not overlap (the added ProcWaitForSignal sits inside the deadlock branch that Vitaly's scenario never reaches). -- JH Shin On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 7:15 AM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > On 2026-Apr-21, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 02:42:38PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > Since this change improves recovery-conflict behavior rather than > fixing a bug, > > > it doesn't seem to need backpatching and we may need to wait until v20 > > > development opens (probably July) before committing it. > > > > Yeah, this one is an improvement, not an actual bug, so let's wait for > > v20 if worth doing (I did not check it). > > Hmm, is this related to > https://postgr.es/m/[email protected] ? > In there, Vitaly claims to be reporting a bug that goes back to pg15, > which contradicts this assessment. > > Regards, > > -- > Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — > https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ > "¿Qué importan los años? Lo que realmente importa es comprobar que > a fin de cuentas la mejor edad de la vida es estar vivo" (Mafalda) >
