On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2016-03-17 09:01:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > 0001: Looking at this again, I'm no longer sure this is a bug. > > Doesn't your patch just check the same conditions in the opposite > > order? > > Which is important, because what's in what pfds[x] depends on > wakeEvents. Folded it into a later patch; it's not harmful as long as > we're only ever testing pfds[0]. > > > > 0003: Mostly boring. But the change to win32_latch.c seems to remove > > an unrelated check. > > Argh. >
+ * from inside a signal handler in latch_sigusr1_handler(). * * Note: we assume that the kernel calls involved in drainSelfPipe() * and SetLatch() will provide adequate synchronization on machines * with weak memory ordering, so that we cannot miss seeing is_set if * the signal byte is already in the pipe when we drain it. */ - drainSelfPipe(); - Above part of comment looks redundant after this patch. I have done some tests on Windows with 0003 patch which includes running the regressions (vcregress check) and it passes. Will look into it tomorrow once again and share if I find anything wrong with it, but feel to proceed if you want. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
