| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |
| Date: | 2002-05-07 14:50:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20020507115018.O32524-100000@mail1.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 7 May 2002, 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.
How is Apache doing this? I believe they do allow the pre-forked model to
work, so how are they getting around those limitations?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pgsql-bugs | 2002-05-07 14:51:12 | Bug #659: lower()/upper() bug on ->multibyte<- DB |
| Previous Message | mlw | 2002-05-07 14:44:08 | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |