| From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |
| Date: | 2002-05-07 14:44:08 |
| Message-ID: | 3CD7E838.6E41B087@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Has anyone done a profile of PostgreSQL running on a windows box and identified
cygwin bottlenecks which we could augment with native code?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-05-07 14:50:50 | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-07 14:32:28 | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |