On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 6:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So that gives a very simple back-patchable patch.
>
> Hmm, so is the *rest* of that function perfectly okay with being
> interrupted?
It looks OK to me. There aren't any CFI()s in there.