| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: win32 service proposal |
| Date: | 2004-05-03 10:17:49 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE34B8F6@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> Spoke about this off-list with Magnus; he's strongly for
> stand-alone; I'm fence-sitting. We see that clearly there are
> some niceties to having this in the postmaster (one less exe
> to build/configure; same install set for win/*nix; etc), but
> the downsides include minor impact on the core code and the
> fact that a user will see two postmaster processes running...
> the latter I find particularly obnoxious (using a thread to
> handle the service or PostmasterMain would alleviate this,
> but would require more work to be able to catch postmaster
> shutdowns, meaning impact to core code, and unexpected
> terminations would leave the user at the mercy of the Service
> Manager).
Hmm, did I come across as stringly for stand-alone? That was not my
intention :-)
I'm definitly leaning in that direction, but I wouldn't say I'm strongly
for it.
Apart from that, those are the points I see. It's just a matter of
weighting them.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-05-03 11:38:00 | Re: Fixed directory locations in installs |
| Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-05-03 10:01:52 | win32 service proposal |