Hello.
Same function, different races, I think.
Vitaly reports a missed wake-up where deadlock_timeout never fires
(spurious SIGALRM from log_startup_progress_interval plus the lazy setitimer in 09cf1d52).
This patch addresses the opposite,
deadlock_timeout does fire, but LockBufferForCleanup loops back and re-arms it,
so the signal repeats once per second.
The two fixes do not overlap
(the added ProcWaitForSignal sits inside the deadlock branch that Vitaly's scenario never reaches).
--
JH Shin
Hello,
On 2026-Apr-21, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 02:42:38PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Since this change improves recovery-conflict behavior rather than fixing a bug,
> > it doesn't seem to need backpatching and we may need to wait until v20
> > development opens (probably July) before committing it.
>
> Yeah, this one is an improvement, not an actual bug, so let's wait for
> v20 if worth doing (I did not check it).
Hmm, is this related to
https://postgr.es/m/44c24dcf-5710-410f-b1b6-d10b315f3d51@postgrespro.ru ?
In there, Vitaly claims to be reporting a bug that goes back to pg15,
which contradicts this assessment.
Regards,
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"¿Qué importan los años? Lo que realmente importa es comprobar que
a fin de cuentas la mejor edad de la vida es estar vivo" (Mafalda)