Michael Harris <harmic@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Do you want to try this and see if it actually adds any robustness with your buggy code?
> Sorry for the delayed response, & thanks for the patch.
> I wasn't able to test with our actual application because it could
> take days for it to actually trigger the problem, so I tested it with
> a simulation, which you can find here:
> https://github.com/harmic/pg_almloss
> With that simulation I could attach gdb to the backend and see that
> signal_pending & signal_due_at were being reset in the expected way,
> even when a missed interrupt was triggered.
> I'm convinced your patch improves robustness under the scenario we saw.
Great, thanks for testing!
regards, tom lane
