Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'm wondering what the design rationale was for only starting one
>> bgworker per invocation.

> The rationale was that there may be other tasks waiting for postmaster
> attention, and if there are many bgworkers needing to be started, the
> other work may be delayed for a long time.  This is not the first time
> that this rationale has been challenged, but so far there hasn't been
> any good reason to change it.  One option is to just remove it as you
> propose, but a different one is to stop using select(2) in ServerLoop,
> because those behavior differences seem to make it rather unusable.

Hm.  Do you have a more-portable alternative?
        regards, tom lane