> My 2c,
I'll add mine as well..
> > 1) Separate binary "pgservice.exe" that will CreateProcess() the
> > postmaster.exe.
> > Advantages: Zero impact on postmaster code. Simple to do.
> > Disadvantages: Adds a platform-specific binary.
> My preference. Personally, I think we should make this pg_ctl.
That sounds like a good idea.
> > 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?)
> This is what I've currently got. I pretty much hate seeing
> two postmaster.exe/s running.
In my opinion, this is the worst idea.
> > 3) Include in postmaster but running on a separate thread
> (not process
> > as
> > Advantages: No extra binary. No extra process. Most integration.
> > Disadvantages: Probably larger impact on postmaster code.
> IMHO, the worst of all options.
Since there is only very little stuff gonig on in a different thread, I
don't think this is the worst idea at all. For me, 1 and 3 are about as
> I'm itching to throw this code somewhere :-)
From what I can read of the people that post it, it seems option 1 is
probably the most popular one. So unless someone objects, I suggest you
move down that path :-)
(It shouldn't be that much work moving yuor stuff from postmaster,
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Cyril VELTER||Date: 2004-05-28 10:18:57|
|Subject: Re: Re : Win32 binaries test / pg_dump problem|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2004-05-28 03:28:09|
|Subject: Re: win32 service code|