Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-04-21 14:08:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> but I see that SUSv2 >> mandates that fcntl.h provide both F_SETFD and FD_CLOEXEC, so by our own >> coding rules it ought to be okay to assume they're there. I'm tempted to >> rip out the quoted bit, as well as the #ifdef F_SETFD, from libpq and see >> if anything in the buildfarm complains.
> +1 Done, we'll soon see what happens. In the same area, I noticed that POSIX does not say that the success result for fcntl(F_SETFD) and related cases is 0. It says that the failure result is -1 and the success result is some other value. We seem to have this right in most places, but e.g. port/noblock.c gets it wrong. The lack of field complaints implies that just about everybody actually does return 0 on success, but I still think it would be a good idea to run around and make all the calls test specifically for -1. 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