Re: win32 service code

From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: "PgSql-Win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: win32 service code
Date: 2004-05-27 20:12:28
Message-ID: 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB34101AE3D@Herge.rcsinc.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

> >> 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.
> >
> >This is the best way to go, I think. This way we can automatically
> >redirect stderr to the event logger and other nice stuff like that.
>
> How can we do this in this case when we can't do it from another
> process?

> (Note - only "boot messages" are interesting anyway. Once the ereport
> code is activated (and after GUC loads), we will report directly to
the
> eventlog.

Right...that makes sense. I guess it makes little difference on this
point then. I suppose even pg_ctl could handle the boot messages
('server is up', 'server is down', etc.), so it makes no difference to
the postmaster whatsoever.

Whatever is the easiest/safest, then.

Merlin

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2004-05-27 20:31:57 Re: win32 service code
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-05-27 20:11:55 Re: win32 service code