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: 2017-04-27 01:10:33
Message-ID: 20170427011033.csoil7rwkwv4ye5n@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-04-26 17:05:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's an updated version of that, which makes use of our previous
> conclusion that F_SETFD/FD_CLOEXEC are available everywhere except
> Windows, and fixes some sloppy thinking about the EXEC_BACKEND case.
>
> 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.

> I propose to push this into HEAD and 9.6 too.

Cool.

Change looks good to me.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-04-27 01:12:58 Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-04-27 01:07:20 Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression