Message-ID: <3F72F487.7060603@dunslane.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:58:31 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] NuSphere and PostgreSQL for windows
References: <200309241711.h8OHBMi20283@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<1064492591.25702.2084.camel@camel> <1794.1064494772@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <1794.1064494772@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:

>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.
>

I am sure you are correct. The whole Windows API is more multi-thread 
friendly than multi-process friendly, and operates far more efficiently 
that way, as I understand it. There is also some potential benefit on 
some *nix systems, where thread creation is far less costly than 
forking, or at least this used to be the case last time I looked at it.

>
>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.
>
>  
>
Not that I like Windows all that much, but using it for a server is 
becoming more defensible as an option. As for portability, what *nix is 
there these days that doesn't have some sort of lightweight thread support?

Maybe the relevant parts of the system need to be abstracted out and 
threading generally made a build time option (on by default for Windows, 
off by default otherwise, maybe?)

cheers

andrew