Re: BUG #15964: vacuumdb.c:187:10: error: use of undeclaredidentifier 'FD_SETSIZE'
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15964: vacuumdb.c:187:10: error: use of undeclaredidentifier 'FD_SETSIZE' |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190818010317.kh5pxpfgpsskc6ip@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15964: vacuumdb.c:187:10: error: use of undeclared identifier 'FD_SETSIZE' (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15964: vacuumdb.c:187:10: error: use of undeclared identifier 'FD_SETSIZE'
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, On 2019-08-17 20:59:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > Hm. This made me think: Why is > > if (concurrentCons > FD_SETSIZE - 1) > > a useful test / error message? > > Good point, it's not. Subtracting off 10 or so might be reasonable. I wonder if we shouldn't just do the same as pgbench now does, and just only error when adding a too large fd. That does reduce the number of detected cases, true, but it also adds robustness, because larger fds are properly handled. > > What is the reason that this doesn't use poll() in the first place? > > We still support platforms without that, no? Windows, for one. Ah, right. I forgot that because we do rely on poll() in latch.c - but we do have an alternative windows implementation there... Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: