> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 6:01 PM
> To: Jan Wieck
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for a Win32 port
>
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > And pg_ctl will be run with a symlink to postmaster like postgres,
> > > right? Makes sense.
> >
> > No symlink. Windows doesn't have symlinks, the "link" stuff you
> > see is just some file with a special meaning for the Windows
> > explorer. There is absolutely no support built into the OS. They
> > really haven't learned alot since the DOS times, when they added
> > "." and ".." entries to directories to "look" similar to UNIX.
> > Actually, they never really understood what a hardlink is in the
> > first place, so why do you expect them to know how to implement
> > symbolic ones?
> >
> > It will be at least another copy of the postmaster (dot exe).
>
> Yea, I just liked the idea of the postmaster binary somehow reporting
> the postmaster status. Seems it is in a better position to
> do that than
> a shell script.
Architectural notion:
The Postmaster is about 100x bigger than it needs to be.
The Postmaster needs to set up shared memory and launch servers. It
does not need to know anything about SQL grammar or any of that
rigamarole.
It could be a 15K executable.
Why not have an itty-bitty Postmaster that does nothing but a spawn or a
create process to create threaded Postgres instances?
Just a notion.
