On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 5:18 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 1:28 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 9:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >> (Someday we oughta go ahead and make our Windows signal API look more
> > >> like POSIX, as I suggested back in 2015. I'm still not taking
> > >> point on that, though.)
> >
> > > For the sigprocmask() part, here's a patch that passes CI. Only the
> > > SIG_SETMASK case is actually exercised by our current code, though.
> >
> > Passes an eyeball check, but I can't actually test it.
>
> Thanks. Pushed.
>
> I'm not brave enough to try to write a replacement sigaction() yet,
> but it does appear that we could rip more ugliness and inconsistencies
> that way, eg sa_mask.
Here's a draft patch that adds a minimal sigaction() implementation
for Windows. It doesn't implement stuff we're not using, for sample
sa_sigaction functions, but it has the sa_mask feature so we can
harmonize the stuff that I believe you were talking about.
