Re: kqueue

On 2016-06-03 01:45, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>>>> pg_strtoi?
>>>
>>>> I think that's what Thomas did upthread. Are you taking this one then?
>>>
>>> I'd go with just "strtoint". We have "strtoint64" elsewhere.
>>
>> For closure of this subthread: this rename was committed by Tom as
>> 0ab3595e5bb5.
>
> Thanks. And here is a new version of the kqueue patch. The previous
> version doesn't apply on top of recent commit
> a3b30763cc8686f5b4cd121ef0bf510c1533ac22, which sprinkled some
> MAXALIGN macros nearby. I've now done the same thing with the kevent
> struct because it's cheap, uniform with the other cases and could
> matter on some platforms for the same reason.

I've tested and reviewed this, and it looks good to me, other than this
part:

+ /*
+ * kevent guarantees that the change list has been processed in the
EINTR
+ * case. Here we are only applying a change list so EINTR counts as
+ * success.
+ */

this doesn't seem to be guaranteed on old versions of FreeBSD or any
other BSD flavors, so I don't think it's a good idea to bake the
assumption into this code. Or what do you think?

.m