Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000

From: "Dwayne Miller" <dmiller(at)espgroup(dot)net>
To: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000
Date: 2001-09-02 04:33:31
Message-ID: 3B91B69B.4010000@espgroup.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Well,  for one.... I have no idea what cygwin is, or what it does to 
your system, or what security vulnerabilities it might add to your 
system.  It comes with alot of stuff that I may or may not need,  but 
what components I need to run Postgres is not clear.

Two.... could Postgres be made more efficient on Windows if it ran 
without cygwin?

Three.... can you start cygwin programs on startup of the system?

mlw wrote:

>Dwayne Miller wrote:
>
>>I understand that the current port of Postgres for Windows requires the
>>cygwin package.  I'd like to understand the requirement for cygwin,and
>>possibly try to port Postgres to run natively on Windows as a NT/2K
>>service.  Anyone like to identify the challenges in such a port?  Is it
>>at all possible?  Anyone else trying to do this?
>>
>
>I'm not trying to do so, but I'm not sure I would say it is possible without
>the the type of technology in cygwin.
>
>I have spent a lot of years writing NT drivers and programs. Unless you have a
>real reason why cygwin is not practical, why bother?
>
>The OS differences between NT and UNIX are huge. The main difference are
>processes. There is no "fork" in NT, and that is a huge gulf to cross. Is there
>a reason why you would not want to use cygwin?
>
>



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ian Lance TaylorDate: 2001-09-02 05:08:02
Subject: Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000
Previous:From: John SummerfieldDate: 2001-09-02 02:27:52
Subject: Build problem with CVS version

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group