Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start

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>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start
Date: 2017-04-21 18:21:24
Message-ID: 20170421182124.wzd2be3zi2wqnuyg@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-04-21 14:08:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> but I see that SUSv2
> mandates that fcntl.h provide both F_SETFD and FD_CLOEXEC, so by our own
> coding rules it ought to be okay to assume they're there. I'm tempted to
> rip out the quoted bit, as well as the #ifdef F_SETFD, from libpq and see
> if anything in the buildfarm complains.

+1

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-04-21 18:40:06 Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-04-21 18:08:21 Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start