Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Дата
Msg-id 20170421182124.wzd2be3zi2wqnuyg@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
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

- Andres

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start