Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I'd still like to get something like your CLOEXEC patch applied
> independently however.

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.

I propose to push this into HEAD and 9.6 too.

regards, tom lane