Jason Tishler wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:33:57PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > mlw wrote:
> > > > Like I told Marc, I don't care. You spec out what you want and I'll write
> > > > it for Windows.
> > > >
> > > > That being said, a SysV IPC interface for native Windows would be kind of
> > > > cool to have.
> > >
> > > I am wondering why we don't just use the Cygwin shm/sem code in our
> > > project, or maybe the Apache stuff; why bother reinventing the wheel.
> >
> > but! in the course of testing some code, I managed to gain some experience
> > with cygwin. I have seen fork() problems with a large number of processes.
>
> Since Cygwin's fork() is implemented with WaitForMultipleObjects(),
> it has a limitation of only 63 children per parent. Also, there can
> be DLL base address conflicts (causing Cygwin fork() to fail) that are
> avoidable by rebasing the appropriate DLLs. AFAICT, Cygwin PostgreSQL is
> currently *not* affected by this issue where as other Cygwin applications
> such as Python and Apache are.
Why would not PostgreSQL be affected by this?
