Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:18:41 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, jungleboogie0@gmail.com,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #15964: vacuumdb.c:187:10: error: use of undeclared
 identifier 'FD_SETSIZE'
Message-ID: <20190820071841.GF1841@paquier.xyz>
References: <20190818001858.ho3ev4z57fqhs7a5@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20190819025953.GA15110@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20190819042832.GA1702@paquier.xyz>
 <23514.1566189171@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190819051251.GB18166@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0hHDr/TIsw4o3iPK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190819051251.GB18166@paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--0hHDr/TIsw4o3iPK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 02:12:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks.  I have somewhat not catched what Andres was suggesting here.
> So attached are two patches:
> - 0001 should take care of the compilation failure, by moving
> FD_SETSIZE into scripts_parallel.c.

I have been able to work on this one more, and applied a fix that
should address the compilation failure.  While on it, I have reduced
the maximum number of parallel slots allowed to give some room for
pre-existing fds as pgbench did before moving to its poll()
implementation.

> - 0002 makes vacuumdb and reindexdb fail when trying to assign a
> socket with an unsupported range.  Should this bit be backpatched?  We
> are doing that for vacuumdb for some time now, and the error is
> confusing so I would prefer fixing it on older branches as well.

For this one, I am still not completely sure which way we would want
to go.  The issue exists down to 9.6 for vacuumdb, so could a fix like
the one I previously proposed be acceptable for a back-patch as this
is not worth the complexity?  Should we try to move to a poll()-based
implementation like pgbench on HEAD, which most likely would result in
having pgbench also use parallel slots with a bit of refactoring, no?
--
Michael

--0hHDr/TIsw4o3iPK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=u3lj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0hHDr/TIsw4o3iPK--