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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
