| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, jungleboogie0(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15964: vacuumdb.c:187:10: error: use of undeclared identifier 'FD_SETSIZE' |
| Date: | 2019-08-18 01:03:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20190818010317.kh5pxpfgpsskc6ip@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 2019-08-17 20:59:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Hm. This made me think: Why is
> > if (concurrentCons > FD_SETSIZE - 1)
> > a useful test / error message?
>
> Good point, it's not. Subtracting off 10 or so might be reasonable.
I wonder if we shouldn't just do the same as pgbench now does, and just
only error when adding a too large fd. That does reduce the number of
detected cases, true, but it also adds robustness, because larger fds
are properly handled.
> > What is the reason that this doesn't use poll() in the first place?
>
> We still support platforms without that, no? Windows, for one.
Ah, right. I forgot that because we do rely on poll() in latch.c - but
we do have an alternative windows implementation there...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-18 01:11:14 | Re: BUG #15964: vacuumdb.c:187:10: error: use of undeclared identifier 'FD_SETSIZE' |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-18 00:59:56 | Re: BUG #15964: vacuumdb.c:187:10: error: use of undeclared identifier 'FD_SETSIZE' |