Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
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 00:10:41
Message-ID: 5447.1492733441@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-04-20 20:05:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, if it's not there we'd fall back to using plain poll(), which is
>> not so awful that we need to work hard to avoid it. I'd just as soon
>> keep the number of combinations down.

> Just using fcntl(SET, CLOEXEC) wound't increase the number of
> combinations?

True, if you just did it that way unconditionally. But doesn't that
require an extra kernel call per CreateWaitEventSet()?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2017-04-21 00:21:41 Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-04-21 00:07:21 Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start