Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Date
Msg-id 14570.1493327184@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-04-27 16:35:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It looks like it might be sufficient to do "#ifdef EPOLL_CLOEXEC"
>> in latch.c, rather than bothering with a full-blown configure check.

> Yea, that sounds worth trying.  Wonder if we need to care about kernels
> not supporting it, but glibc having support?  I'd be ok skimping on that
> for now.

On my RHEL6 box, <sys/epoll.h> is provided by glibc not the kernel:

$ rpm -qf /usr/include/sys/epoll.h
glibc-headers-2.12-1.209.el6_9.1.x86_64

So I think it's probably safe to assume that the header is in sync
with what glibc can do.

As for kernel (much) older than glibc, I'd rather expect glibc to paper
over that, though I've not looked at the source code to be sure.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Use SnapshotAny in get_actual_variable_range