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

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Date
Msg-id 20170421182124.wzd2be3zi2wqnuyg@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

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