Andres Freund <and...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers