Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:03:29 -0300
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) ?
Message-ID: <20181217170329.njoowigcqaqevulp@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <32357.1545065523@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: bulk

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