Re: PostmasterIsAlive() in recovery (non-USE_POST_MASTER_DEATH_SIGNAL builds)

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:10 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ... One question I haven't
> got to the bottom of: is it a problem for the startup process that CVs
> use CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?

This was a red herring. The startup process already reaches CFI() via
various paths, as I figured out pretty quickly with a debugger. So
I'd like to go ahead and commit these patches.

Michael, when you said "That's pretty hack-ish, still efficient" in
reference to this code:

> - if (IsUnderPostmaster && !PostmasterIsAlive())
> + if (IsUnderPostmaster &&
> +#ifndef USE_POSTMASTER_DEATH_SIGNAL
> + count++ % 1024 == 0 &&
> +#endif
> + !PostmasterIsAlive())

Is that an objection, and do you see a specific better way?

I know that someone just needs to write a Windows patch to get us a
postmaster death signal when the postmaster's event fires, and then
the problem will go away on Windows. I still want this change,
because we don't have such a patch yet, and even when someone writes
that, there are still a couple of Unixes that could benefit.