Re: WIN32 native ... lets start?!? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Actually, take a look at the thread starting at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-05/msg00665.php

Right now, IMHO, the big show stopper is passing global variables to the
child processes in Windows ... the above thread talks about a method of
pulling together the global variables *cleanly* that Tom seems to feel
wouldn't add much in the way of long term maintenance headaches ... *and*,
as I understand it, would provide us with a means to use threading in
future developments if deemed appropriate ...

From what I read by those 'in the know' about Windows programming, if we
could centralize the global variables somewhat, using CreateProcess in
Windows shouldn't be a big deal, eliminiating the whole fork() headache
...

On Thu, 16 May 2002, Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I followed the various threads regarding this for some time now. My current
> situation is:
>
> I'm working at a company which does industrial automation, and does it's own
> custom products. We try to be cross-platform, but it's a windoze world, as
> far as most measurement devices or PLCs are concerned. We also employ
> databases for various tasks (including simple ones as holding configuration
> data, but also hammering production data into it at a rate of several hundred
> records/sec.)
> Well, we would *love* to use PostgreSQL in most our projects and products,
> (and we do already use it in some), because it has proven to be very reliable
> and quite fast.
>
> So, I'm faced with using PostgreSQL on windows also (you can't always put a
> Linux box besides). We do this using cygwin, but it's a bit painful ;-)
> (although it works!).
>
> Thinking about the hreads I read, it seems there are 2 obstacles to native PG
> on W:
>
> 1.) no fork,
> 2.) no SYSV IPC
>
> Ok, 1.) is an issue, but there's a fork() in MinGW, so it's 'just' going to
> be a bit slow on new connections to the DB, right?? But this could be sorted
> out once we *have* a native WIN32 build.
>
> The second one's a bit harder, but... I'm currently trying to find time to do
> a minimal implementation of SYSV IPC on WIN32 calls, just enough to get PG up
> (doesn't need msg*() for example, right?).
> As far as I understand it, we would not need to have IPC items around *after*
> all backends and postmaster have gone away, or? Then there's no need for a
> 'daemon' process like in cygwin.
>
> So, my route would be to get it to run *somehow* without paying attention to
> speed and not to change much of the existing code, THEN see how we could get
> rid of fork() on windows.
>
> What do you guys think? Anyone up to join efforts? (I'll start the IPC thingy
> anyway, as an exercise, and see where I'll end).
>
> Greetings,
>         Joerg
>
> P.s.: thanks for a great database system!!
> --
> Leading SW developer  - S.E.A GmbH
> Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
> WWW:  http://www.sea-gmbh.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>