Re: New win32 signals patch (3)

Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com> writes:
>> Actually, I noticed we *already* do memcpy on fd_sets in the
>> postmaster, so it's nothing new. I don't think it'll be a problem.

> Under Win32, which specifically states of fd_sets "data representation is
> opaque", I'd argue that it isn't strictly a good idea... but clearly, by
> inspection of the Win32 fd_set type, it'll work (and would clearly continue
> to do so for any sensible implementation of fd_sets), so I have a pretty low
> care-factor... :-)

I missed the reason for agonizing over fd_sets, but maybe you should be
thinking about using poll() instead of select() anyway?

select() is a bit risky since it can fail if the process has enough FDs
open to exceed whatever the FD set size is --- you may be wishing to
wait on an FD that can't be represented in an fd_set.  This cannot
happen in the postmaster, which never has more than a few files open,
but for general-purpose use in backends I'd much rather see us use
poll() on all platforms that have it.  I assume Windows does...

            regards, tom lane