Re: Threads vs processes - The Apache Way (Re: Path to PostgreSQL

From: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
To: Robert <robert(at)robert(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Threads vs processes - The Apache Way (Re: Path to PostgreSQL
Date: 2002-05-10 11:13:04
Message-ID: 3CDBAB40.37F34D79@mohawksoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Win32 & threads support are both going to be a lot of work and maybe
> we'll need in the future one or both - is there any chance Postgres
> developers look at the Apache experience? Briefly, Apache 2 had the some
> problems as are discussed here (need to support Win, problems with Win32
> fork, questionable cygwin etc) and they decided to solve it once and for
> all with their Apache Portable Runtime and Multi-Processing Modules. APR
> was already mentioned here - now how about MPMs?

I am starting to come to the conclusion that the PostgreSQL group is satisfied
with cygwin, and the will to create a native Win32 version does not exist
outside of a few organizations that are paying developers to create one.

Without some buy-in from the core team, I'm not sure I am willing to spend my
time on it. If someone would be willing to fund the 100 or so man-hours
required to do it, then that would be a different story.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brett Schwarz 2002-05-10 11:25:52 Re: internal voting
Previous Message Manfred Koizar 2002-05-10 11:12:21 Nested transactions RFC