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.