Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

On 2017-04-26 17:05:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's an updated version of that, which makes use of our previous
> conclusion that F_SETFD/FD_CLOEXEC are available everywhere except
> Windows, and fixes some sloppy thinking about the EXEC_BACKEND case.
> 
> 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.


> I propose to push this into HEAD and 9.6 too.

Cool.


Change looks good to me.


Greetings,

Andres Freund