Horton

Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2017-04-21T18:21:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2017-04-21 14:08:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> but I see that SUSv2
> mandates that fcntl.h provide both F_SETFD and FD_CLOEXEC, so by our own
> coding rules it ought to be okay to assume they're there.  I'm tempted to
> rip out the quoted bit, as well as the #ifdef F_SETFD, from libpq and see
> if anything in the buildfarm complains.

+1

- Andres

Commits

  1. Cope with glibc too old to have epoll_create1().

  2. Make latch.c more paranoid about child-process cases.

  3. Allow multiple bgworkers to be launched per postmaster iteration.

  4. Revert "Use pselect(2) not select(2), if available, to wait in postmaster's loop."

  5. Use pselect(2) not select(2), if available, to wait in postmaster's loop.

  6. Run the postmaster's signal handlers without SA_RESTART.

  7. Fix postmaster's handling of fork failure for a bgworker process.

  8. Partially revert commit 536d47bd9d5fce8d91929bee3128fa1d08dbcc57.

  9. Avoid depending on non-POSIX behavior of fcntl(2).

  10. Remove long-obsolete catering for platforms without F_SETFD/FD_CLOEXEC.