Re: APR 1.0 released

Gaetano Mendola wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>> now that Apache Portable Runtime was release why don't
>>> use it on Postgres?
>>
>>
>>
>> The sense of the question is backwards. Why *should* we use it?
>
>
> In order to avoid all the annoyance that someone else had in
> write code portable. I mean, how much time ( I'm not a postgres
> developer, I like to think, for lack of time ) was spent in order
> to port postgres to win32 ? Don't you think that use of APR could
> save time ?
>
> Andrew: about the green cheese, why not remake the moon with it
> if this have some benefit ?
>
>

Go and study the history of how long it took the Apache people to get
APR done. Look at the history of the various MPMs. By contrast, we got
our Windows port done in rather less than a year, partly by *not* going
down ratholes like APR. Now it's true that they had a different (and
harder) set of problems to deal with - in particular scaling to huge
numbers of very short-lived connections. Even so, it took them a very
long time (years and years) to get right, and they still use a different
MPM by default on Windows from what they use on Unix - and you have to
choose it at configure time. I am not crtiticizing the Apache people - I
am just saying there is no evidence that using APR would have any
benefit at all for PostgreSQL - and it would be massively invasive and
require huge effort to do so.

cheers

andrew