| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GNU/Hurd portability patches |
| Date: | 2025-11-17 02:59:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKAUa7ybQ9=6ap2uh-TmHtH8wFL-DTeeh-swprg+Rf=+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:49 AM Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> |login: task ./test_signalhandler(767) looked up a bogus port 23 for3205, most probably a bug.
. o O { An absurdly far-fetched thought while browsing glibc/hurd glue
code: if synchronous I/O is implemented as RPC on Mach ports, could
that mean that it's technically possible to submit now and consume
results later, for asynchronous I/O? Possibly too
private/undocumented anyway, and maybe they'll eventually do io_uring
or something... I idly wondered about driving I/O directly with ports
while studying the dismal implementation of POSIX AIO on macOS, which
also derives from CMU Mach, but NeXT/Apple jammed file systems down
into the unikernel part behind traditional syscalls, and it looks like
maybe only raw devices are accessible with ports. (I have dim
memories of learning C and assembler more than 30 years ago on a
Commodore Amiga whose microkernel nee Cambridge TRIPOS worked like
that... that cheap home computer could easily get both floppy drives
doing random I/O at once while computing other stuff, unlike Unix...)
}
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2025-11-17 03:04:15 | Re: PartitionKeyData->partattrs, refactor some 0 to InvalidAttrNumber |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-11-17 02:51:04 | Re: Report oldest xmin source when autovacuum cannot remove tuples |