Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start
Date: 2017-04-27 20:35:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-04-26 17:05:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I went ahead and changed the call to epoll_create into epoll_create1.
>> I'm not too concerned about loss of portability there --- it seems
>> unlikely that many people are still using ten-year-old glibc, and
>> even less likely that any of them would be interested in running
>> current Postgres on their stable-unto-death platform.  We could add
>> a configure test for epoll_create1 if you feel one's needed, but
>> I think it'd just be a waste of cycles.

> Yea, I think we can live with that.  If we find it's a problem, we can
> add a configure test later.

Well, according to the buildfarm, "later" is "now" :-(.

If RHEL5 is too old to have epoll_create1, I think your dates for it
might be a bit off.  Anyway, I'll go do something about that in a
little bit.

It looks like it might be sufficient to do "#ifdef EPOLL_CLOEXEC"
in latch.c, rather than bothering with a full-blown configure check.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2017-04-27 20:40:07
Subject: Re: frogmouth failures
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2017-04-27 20:30:35
Subject: Re: frogmouth failures

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group