On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > ISTM it would be cleaner to patch PG_SETMASK to have a second argument
> > and to return the original mask if that's not NULL. This is more
> > invasive, but there aren't that many callsites of that macro.
>
> [ shoulda read your message before replying ]
>
> Given that this needs back-patched, I think changing PG_SETMASK
> is a bad idea: there might be outside callers. However, we could
> add another macro with the additional argument. PG_GET_AND_SET_MASK?
It's funny though, the reason we had PG_SETMASK in the first place is
not for Windows. Ancient commit 47937403676 added that for long gone
pre-POSIX systems like NeXTSTEP which only had single-argument
sigsetmask(), not sigprocmask(). In general on Windows we're
emulating POSIX signal interfaces with normal names like sigemptyset()
etc, it just so happens that we chose to emulate that pre-standard
sigsetmask() interface (as you complained about in the commit message
for a65e0864).
So why would I add another wrapper like PG_SETMASK and leave it
unimplemented for now on Windows, when I could just use sigprocmask()
directly and leave it unimplemented for now on Windows?
The only reason I can think of for a wrapper is to provide a place to
check the return code and ereport (panic?). That seems to be of
limited value (how can it fail ... bad "how" value, or a sandbox
denying some system calls, ...?). I did make sure to preserve the
errno though; even though we're assuming these calls can't fail by
long standing tradition, I didn't feel like additionally assuming that
successful calls don't clobber errno.
I guess, coded like this, it should also be safe to do it in the
postmaster, but I think maybe we should leave it conditional, rather
than relying on BlockSig being initialised and sane during early
postmaster initialisation.
