Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-04-20 20:05:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, if it's not there we'd fall back to using plain poll(), which is
>> not so awful that we need to work hard to avoid it.  I'd just as soon
>> keep the number of combinations down.

> Just using fcntl(SET, CLOEXEC) wound't increase the number of
> combinations?

True, if you just did it that way unconditionally.  But doesn't that
require an extra kernel call per CreateWaitEventSet()?
        regards, tom lane