On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:23 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.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