From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
Date: | 2017-04-20 23:59:19 |
Message-ID: | 20170420235919.rtvj4keihhgbfbek@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-04-20 19:53:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> On 2017-04-20 19:23:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> or are the HANDLEs in a Windows WaitEventSet not inheritable
> >>> resources?
>
> >> So that kind of sounds like it should be doable.
>
> > Ah, good. I'll add a comment about that and press on.
>
> So ... what would you say to replacing epoll_create() with
> epoll_create1(EPOLL_CLOEXEC) ? Then a WaitEventSet would not
> represent inheritable-across-exec resources on any platform,
> making it a lot easier to deal with the EXEC_BACKEND case.
>
> AFAIK, both APIs are Linux-only, and epoll_create1() is not much
> newer than epoll_create(), so it seems like we'd not be giving up
> much portability if we insist on epoll_create1.
I'm generally quite in favor of using CLOEXEC as much as possible in our
tree. I'm a bit concerned with epoll_create1's availability tho - the
glibc support for it was introduced in 2.9, whereas epoll_create is in
2.3.2. On the other hand 2.9 was released 2008-11-13. If we remain
concerned we could just fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) instead - that
should only be like three lines more code or such, and should be
available for a lot longer.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-21 00:05:02 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-20 23:53:02 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |