Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

I wrote:
> What I'm inclined to do is to revert the pselect change but not the other,
> to see if that fixes these two animals.  If it does, we could look into
> blacklisting these particular platforms when choosing pselect.

It looks like coypu is going to need manual intervention (ie, kill -9
on the leftover postmaster) to get unwedged :-(.  That's particularly
disturbing because it implies that ServerLoop isn't iterating at all;
otherwise, it'd have noticed by now that the buildfarm script deleted
its data directory out from under it.  Even if NetBSD's pselect had
forgotten to unblock signals, you'd figure it'd time out after a
minute ... so it's even more broken than that.
        regards, tom lane