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: cm(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, remi_zara(at)mac(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start
Date: 2017-04-24 22:19:01
Message-ID: 20170424221901.dd6bvedsfxgpsurl@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-04-24 18:14:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2017-04-24 17:33:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> coypu's problem is unrelated:
>
> > Note I was linking the 9.6 report form coypu, not HEAD. Afaics the 9.6
> > failure is the same as gharial's mode of failure.
>
> [ looks closer... ] Oh: the 9.6 run occurred first, and the failures on
> HEAD and 9.5 are presumably follow-on damage because the stuck postmaster
> hasn't released semaphores.
>
> A bit of googling establishes that NetBSD 5.1 has a broken pselect
> implementation:
>
> http://gnats.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=43625

Yikes. Do I understand correctly that they effectively just mapped
pselect to select?

> What I'm inclined to do is to revert the pselect change but not the other,
> to see if that fixes these two animals. If it does, we could look into
> blacklisting these particular platforms when choosing pselect.

Seems sensible.

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-04-24 22:20:44 Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-04-24 22:14:41 Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start