On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:48:10PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 5:50 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:03:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > Perhaps beginning a new thread with a patch and a summary would be
>> > better at this stage? Another thing I am wondering is if it could be
>> > possible to test that rather reliably. I have been playing with a few
>> > scenarios like holding the system() call for a bit with hardcoded
>> > sleep()s, without much success. I'll try harder on that part.. It's
>> > been mentioned as well that we could just move away from system() in
>> > the long-term.
>>
>> I'm happy to create a new thread if needed, but I can't tell if there is
>> any interest in this stopgap/back-branch fix. Perhaps we should just jump
>> straight to the long-term fix that Thomas is looking into.
>
> Unfortunately the latch-friendly subprocess module proposal I was
> talking about would be for 17. I may post a thread fairly soon with
> design ideas + list of problems and decision points as I see them, and
> hopefully some sketch code, but it won't be a proposal for [/me checks
> calendar] next week's commitfest and probably wouldn't be appropriate
> in a final commitfest anyway, and I also have some other existing
> stuff to clear first. So please do continue with the stopgap ideas.
I've created a new thread for the stopgap fix [0].
[0] https://postgr.es/m/20230223231503.GA743455%40nathanxps13
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
