Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > ... I wondered about also removing the leftover comment > "We assume that any system that has Linux epoll() also has Linux > signalfd()" which was my attempt to explain that there wasn't a > separate configure check for signalfd.h, but I guess the sentence is > still true in a more general sense, so we can just leave it there. Oh, I didn't notice that comment, or I probably would have tweaked it. Perhaps along the line of "there are too few systems that have epoll and not signalfd to justify maintaining a separate code path"? regards, tom lane
