| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |
| Date: | 2002-05-07 18:28:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1020796124.2006.8.camel@rh72.home.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 19:44, mlw wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > And no, I don't want to undo those changes. Especially not if the
> > only reason for it is to not have to use Cygwin on Windows. Most
> > of these changes made the startup code substantially simpler,
> > faster, and more reliable.
>
> Then I think the notion of a pure Windows version is dead in the water. Writing
> a fork()-like API for Windows is, of course, doable as evidenced by cygwin, and
> from a general theory seems like a pretty straight forward thing to do (with a
> few low level tricks of course) but the details are pretty scary.
There is still another way - use threads.
There you have of course the opposite problem - to determine what to
_not_ share, but AFAIK this has been done already at least once.
And there seems to be some consensus that doing things that would
eventually make it easier to use threaded model will probably increase
code quality in general.
---------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlw | 2002-05-07 18:32:04 | Re: How much work is a native Windows application? |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-05-07 18:26:17 | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |