Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: 2017-04-26 21:05:39
Message-ID: 8322.1493240739@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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


Attachment: fix-latch-and-waiteventset-inheritance.patch
Description: text/x-diff (8.3 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Petr JelinekDate: 2017-04-26 21:41:51
Subject: Re: Logical replication in the same cluster
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2017-04-26 20:12:21
Subject: Re: [POC] hash partitioning

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group