| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Rémi Zara <remi_zara(at)mac(dot)com>, cm(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Date: | 2019-02-11 11:07:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20190211110703.ow6h3mi3k3beytte@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-04-26 11:42:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 3. Go ahead with converting the postmaster to use WaitEventSet, a la
> the draft patch I posted earlier. I'd be happy to do this if we were
> at the start of a devel cycle, but right now seems a bit late --- not
> to mention that we really need to fix 9.6 as well.
Btw, recent-ish versions of
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal-safety.7.html
have
* POSIX.1-2003 clarified that if an application calls fork(2) from a
signal handler and any of the fork handlers registered by
pthread_atfork(3) calls a function that is not async-signal-safe,
the behavior is undefined. A future revision of the standard is
likely to remove fork(2) from the list of async-signal-safe
functions.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2019-02-11 11:44:39 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-11 10:55:00 | Re: pgsql: Restrict the use of temporary namespace in two-phase transaction |