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 6488.1492646765@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:
> FWIW, I'd wished before that we used something a bit more modern than
> select() if available... It's nice to be able to listen to a larger
> number of sockets without repeated O(sockets) overhead.

[ raised eyebrow... ]  Is anyone really running postmasters with enough
listen sockets for that to be meaningful?

> BTW, we IIRC had discussed removing the select() backed latch
> implementation in this release.  I'll try to dig up that discussion.

Might be sensible.  Even my pet dinosaurs have poll(2).  We should
check the buildfarm to see if the select() implementation is being
tested at all.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

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