From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: EINTR in ftruncate()
In-reply-to: <20220714144652.jph7exiywushg4gc@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20220714144652.jph7exiywushg4gc@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Thu, 14 Jul 2022 16:46:52 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2835510.1657812444.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:27:24 -0400
Message-ID: <2835511.1657812444@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2835511.1657812444%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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?

			regards, tom lane