From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gabriela Serventi <gabrielaserventi(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Compile 14.1 in EL5.8 |
Date: | 2022-02-10 01:25:53 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+4xK=7doSrBb3b59S-SGHrQzt3L0k5ZJ1xhcuihz1UYg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:23 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > ... I wondered about also removing the leftover comment
> > "We assume that any system that has Linux epoll() also has Linux
> > signalfd()" which was my attempt to explain that there wasn't a
> > separate configure check for signalfd.h, but I guess the sentence is
> > still true in a more general sense, so we can just leave it there.
>
> Oh, I didn't notice that comment, or I probably would have tweaked it.
> Perhaps along the line of "there are too few systems that have epoll
> and not signalfd to justify maintaining a separate code path"?
WFM, though I remain a little unclear on whether our support policy is
stochastic or declarative :-D
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guyren Howe | 2022-02-10 05:14:39 | Can we go beyond the standard to make Postgres radically better? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-10 01:23:28 | Re: Compile 14.1 in EL5.8 |