Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-04-21 14:08:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> but I see that SUSv2
>> mandates that fcntl.h provide both F_SETFD and FD_CLOEXEC, so by our own
>> coding rules it ought to be okay to assume they're there.  I'm tempted to
>> rip out the quoted bit, as well as the #ifdef F_SETFD, from libpq and see
>> if anything in the buildfarm complains.

> +1

Done, we'll soon see what happens.

In the same area, I noticed that POSIX does not say that the success
result for fcntl(F_SETFD) and related cases is 0.  It says that the
failure result is -1 and the success result is some other value.
We seem to have this right in most places, but e.g. port/noblock.c
gets it wrong.  The lack of field complaints implies that just about
everybody actually does return 0 on success, but I still think it
would be a good idea to run around and make all the calls test
specifically for -1.
        regards, tom lane