To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] NuSphere and PostgreSQL for windows 
In-reply-to: <1064492591.25702.2084.camel@camel> 
References: <200309241711.h8OHBMi20283@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<1064492591.25702.2084.camel@camel>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	message dated "25 Sep 2003 08:23:11 -0400"
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:59:32 -0400
Message-ID: <1794.1064494772@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 13:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> SRA's Windows port is up to 7.3.4, and I think they just released
>> version 1.1, so that is going fine --- and I have the source code to
>> use in our native Win32 port, just not the threading stuff.

> And if I've paid attention, the threading bits are what SRA used to get
> around the fork/exec issues?  

BTW, I've been wondering lately if we'd not be better off to look at
using threading in the Windows port, if it'd help us get around the
fork/exec data transfer problem.  I'm not sure that it would, mind you,
but if it would give an answer it might be a lot less painful than
solving the data transfer problem directly.

Our main objections to threading in the past have always been lack of
portability and loss of robustness.  Portability isn't an issue for a
Windows-only solution, and I'm not too concerned about the other either,
since I'll never think that Windows would be a place to run a production
server anyway.

			regards, tom lane