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 20190211110703.ow6h3mi3k3beytte@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2017-04-26 11:42:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 3. Go ahead with converting the postmaster to use WaitEventSet, a la
> the draft patch I posted earlier.  I'd be happy to do this if we were
> at the start of a devel cycle, but right now seems a bit late --- not
> to mention that we really need to fix 9.6 as well.

Btw, recent-ish versions of
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal-safety.7.html
have
       *  POSIX.1-2003 clarified that if an application calls fork(2) from a
          signal handler and any of the fork handlers registered by
          pthread_atfork(3) calls a function that is not async-signal-safe,
          the behavior is undefined.  A future revision of the standard is
          likely to remove fork(2) from the list of async-signal-safe
          functions.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: ON SELECT rule on a table without columns
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?