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 3286.1492642586@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm.  Do you have a more-portable alternative?

> I was thinking in a WaitEventSet from latch.c.

Yeah, some googling turns up the suggestion that a self-pipe is a portable
way to get consistent semantics from select(); latch.c has already done
that.  I suppose that using latch.c would be convenient in that we'd have
to write little new code, but it's a tad annoying to add the overhead of a
self-pipe on platforms where we don't need it (which seems to be most).
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Highly Variable Planning Times