On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:23 PM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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"? WFM, though I remain a little unclear on whether our support policy is stochastic or declarative :-D
