From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why aren't we using strsignal(3) ?
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:03:29 -0300
Message-ID: <20181217170329.njoowigcqaqevulp@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <32357.1545065523@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2018-Dec-17, Tom Lane wrote:
> But it looks like
> we could drop the sys_siglist support for an undetectably small penalty:
> even if, somewhere, there's a platform that has sys_siglist[] but not
> strsignal(), it'd just mean that you get only a signal number and have
> to look up its meaning.
>
> While a dozen lines in pgstrsignal.c certainly are not worth worrying
> over, getting rid of the configure test for sys_siglist[] would save
> some cycles on every build. So I'm tempted to drop it. Thoughts?
+1 for nuking it. configure times grow larger, and there's seldom a
change to make them shorter. In this case, per your analysis, it
doesn't look like we're losing anything worthwhile.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why aren't we using strsignal(3) ?
In-Reply-To: <20181217170329.njoowigcqaqevulp@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox