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.
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 |