On Sat, 4 May 2002, mlw wrote:
> Upon doing some inspection of apache 2.x, it seems that me making a SysV
> Windows .DLL for PostgreSQL, while a cool project, would be unnecessary.
>
> The APR (Apache Portable Runtime) seems to have all the necessary support. The
> problem is that it has its own API.
>
> We should find a way to extract the APR out of apache and make it a library
> within PostgreSQL. A quick look at the license seems to indicate this is OK.
> Should we notify the Apache guys just to be polite?
>
> It looks like the APR is pretty analogous to SysV with a few changes, so it
> should not be too hard to code it into PostgrsSQL.
This is the wrong route to take ... I've already discussed it with the
Apache folk, and, yes, we could include it into our tree, but I would
*really* like to avoid that ... main reason, there is an active group over
there working on this API and I'd rather not have to maintain a second
version of it ...
As is my intention, I'm going to pull out the shared memory stuff that we
are currently using and putting it into a central file, with a pg_*
associated command to match it ... this way, if someone wants to use the
'standard shared memory' that comes with their OS, they can ... if someone
wants to use libapr.*, which I've been informed will be released as a
seperate package from Apache once v1.0 of it is available (and associated
.dll's), then they will have that option too ...
