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

Re: win32 service code

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: PgSql-Win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: win32 service code
Date: 2004-05-27 20:11:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Magnus Hagander wrote:

>Last I spoke with Claudio, he was still waiting for some reactions from
>others than me on how we want the service code. So I figured I'd post a
>recap of the options we have. I've added some advantages/disadvantages,
>but those are my thoughts only. There are sure to be others. 
>1) Separate binary "pgservice.exe" that will CreateProcess() the
>Advantages: Zero impact on postmaster code. Simple to do.
>Disadvantages: Adds a platform-specific binary.
>2) Include in postmaster doing an extra CreateProcess().
>Advantages: No extra binary. Low impact on postmaster code.
>Disadvantages: Two postmaster.exe:s. running (confusing? overhead?)
>3) Include in postmaster but running on a separate thread (not process
>as (2))
>Advantages: No extra binary. No extra process. Most integration.
>Disadvantages: Probably larger impact on postmaster code.
>As said, I've probably missed some in adv/disadv, but I think I got all
>our options.

Could we combine 1 and 2? We already have the postmaster/postgres 
distinction in what is in fact the same binary. Of course, there might 
be an undesirable memory impact - not sure how good Windows is at shared 

I'm a fan of low impact, but I have no strong opinion on this.



In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-05-27 20:11:55
Subject: Re: win32 service code
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-05-27 19:45:00
Subject: Re: win32 service code

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group