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.
Whatever technical problems there are, we can debate on and
on if it's worth working around them in PostgreSQL or fixing
them in CygWIN or whatever.
The main problem will remain. That using PostgreSQL under
CygWIN requires some UNIX know how. So a pure Windows
user/shop needs UNIX knowledge to run our "Windows port" of
PostgreSQL? Interesting definition of "port".
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
