Re: Why aren't we using strsignal(3) ?

On 2018-Dec-17, Tom Lane wrote:

> But it looks like
> we could drop the sys_siglist support for an undetectably small penalty:
> even if, somewhere, there's a platform that has sys_siglist[] but not
> strsignal(), it'd just mean that you get only a signal number and have
> to look up its meaning.
> 
> While a dozen lines in pgstrsignal.c certainly are not worth worrying
> over, getting rid of the configure test for sys_siglist[] would save
> some cycles on every build.  So I'm tempted to drop it.  Thoughts?

+1 for nuking it.  configure times grow larger, and there's seldom a
change to make them shorter.  In this case, per your analysis, it
doesn't look like we're losing anything worthwhile.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services