On 2017-04-20 19:53:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >> On 2017-04-20 19:23:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> or are the HANDLEs in a Windows WaitEventSet not inheritable > >>> resources? > > >> So that kind of sounds like it should be doable. > > > Ah, good. I'll add a comment about that and press on. > > So ... what would you say to replacing epoll_create() with > epoll_create1(EPOLL_CLOEXEC) ? Then a WaitEventSet would not > represent inheritable-across-exec resources on any platform, > making it a lot easier to deal with the EXEC_BACKEND case. > > AFAIK, both APIs are Linux-only, and epoll_create1() is not much > newer than epoll_create(), so it seems like we'd not be giving up > much portability if we insist on epoll_create1.
I'm generally quite in favor of using CLOEXEC as much as possible in our tree. I'm a bit concerned with epoll_create1's availability tho - the glibc support for it was introduced in 2.9, whereas epoll_create is in 2.3.2. On the other hand 2.9 was released 2008-11-13. If we remain concerned we could just fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) instead - that should only be like three lines more code or such, and should be available for a lot longer. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
