Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start)

Hi, On 2017-04-20 17:27:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > In short: yeah, let's nuke the WAIT_USE_SELECT implementation. > It's dead code and it's unlikely to get resurrected. Done. > BTW, noting that SUSv2 specifies not , I wonder > whether we couldn't drop configure's test for the latter along

Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start)

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2017-04-20 17:27:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> In short: yeah, let's nuke the WAIT_USE_SELECT implementation. >>> It's dead code and it's unlikely to get resurrected. > >> Ok,

Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start)

I wrote: > I did my own checking, and concur that only the MinGW buildfarm members > are reporting lacking poll(2) or poll.h. Since they also report lacking > sys/select.h, they must be falling through to the WAIT_USE_WIN32 > implementation. BTW, another amusing thing I just noted is that given

Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-20 17:27:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> In short: yeah, let's nuke the WAIT_USE_SELECT implementation. >> It's dead code and it's unlikely to get resurrected. > Ok, cool. v10 or wait till v11? I see very little reason to wait > personally.

Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start)

Hi, On 2017-04-20 17:27:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-04-19 20:06:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> We should check the buildfarm to see if the select() implementation is > >> being tested at all. > > > I verified it's currently not (unless I

Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-19 20:06:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> We should check the buildfarm to see if the select() implementation is >> being tested at all. > I verified it's currently not (unless I made a mistake): I did my own checking, and concur that only the