Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-04-26 17:05:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I went ahead and changed the call to epoll_create into epoll_create1.
>> I'm not too concerned about loss of portability there --- it seems
>> unlikely that many people are still using ten-year-old glibc, and
>> even less likely that any of them would be interested in running
>> current Postgres on their stable-unto-death platform.  We could add
>> a configure test for epoll_create1 if you feel one's needed, but
>> I think it'd just be a waste of cycles.

> Yea, I think we can live with that.  If we find it's a problem, we can
> add a configure test later.

Well, according to the buildfarm, "later" is "now" :-(.

If RHEL5 is too old to have epoll_create1, I think your dates for it
might be a bit off.  Anyway, I'll go do something about that in a
little bit.

It looks like it might be sufficient to do "#ifdef EPOLL_CLOEXEC"
in latch.c, rather than bothering with a full-blown configure check.
        regards, tom lane