Re: Issues tangential to win32 support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: Issues tangential to win32 support
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.33.0205091207540.3940-100000@css120.ihs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Issues tangential to win32 support  (Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:

> > If postgresql IS going to eventually be multi-threaded, then the whole
> > win32 port should probably be delayed until then, since it would solve
> > many of the issues of fork() versus createprocess().
> 
>     If multi-threading is the plan, then there is  light  at  the
>     end of the tunnel ... the upcoming train...

That's a bit extreme don't you think?  I'm not fan of multi-threading as 
the one true way, and since I use linux as my server for postgresql, there 
is no gain for me in a multi-threaded model.  In fact, I'd prefer 
postgresql stay multi-process for robustness.

BUT, if there are plans to go multi-thread, or could be plans, then those 
should take priority over how to port to windows, since making postgresql 
multi-threaded will change it so much as to make the current "how do we 
port to windows" thread meaningless.

One of the primary reasons given for avoiding cygwin is that postgresql 
runs so slowly under it on windows, but I submit that it probably won't 
run a heck of a lot faster if it was written as a native app as long as 
it's running as a multi-process design.  Since there's probably no great 
gain to be had from moving it out from under cygwin, why bother?

My vote would be to stay multi-process and Unix compatible.  I have no 
real use for windows as a server, and do NOT want to sacrifice the 
performance / reliability I have with postgresql under Linux for a windows 
port.





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Cyril VELTER"
Date:
Subject: Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy
Next
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy