Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

Hi,

On 2017-04-26 11:42:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 3. Go ahead with converting the postmaster to use WaitEventSet, a la
> the draft patch I posted earlier.  I'd be happy to do this if we were
> at the start of a devel cycle, but right now seems a bit late --- not
> to mention that we really need to fix 9.6 as well.

Btw, recent-ish versions of
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal-safety.7.html
have
       *  POSIX.1-2003 clarified that if an application calls fork(2) from a
          signal handler and any of the fork handlers registered by
          pthread_atfork(3) calls a function that is not async-signal-safe,
          the behavior is undefined.  A future revision of the standard is
          likely to remove fork(2) from the list of async-signal-safe
          functions.

Greetings,

Andres Freund