Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

On 2017-04-24 18:14:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2017-04-24 17:33:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> coypu's problem is unrelated:
> 
> > Note I was linking the 9.6 report form coypu, not HEAD. Afaics the 9.6
> > failure is the same as gharial's mode of failure.
> 
> [ looks closer... ]  Oh: the 9.6 run occurred first, and the failures on
> HEAD and 9.5 are presumably follow-on damage because the stuck postmaster
> hasn't released semaphores.
> 
> A bit of googling establishes that NetBSD 5.1 has a broken pselect
> implementation:
> 
> http://gnats.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=43625

Yikes.  Do I understand correctly that they effectively just mapped
pselect to select?


> What I'm inclined to do is to revert the pselect change but not the other,
> to see if that fixes these two animals.  If it does, we could look into
> blacklisting these particular platforms when choosing pselect.

Seems sensible.

- Andres