Re: OK, lets talk portability.

"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, mlw wrote:
> 
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > And no, I don't want to undo those changes.  Especially not if the
> > > only reason for it is to not have to use Cygwin on Windows.  Most
> > > of these changes made the startup code substantially simpler,
> > > faster, and more reliable.
> >
> > Then I think the notion of a pure Windows version is dead in the water.
> > Writing a fork()-like API for Windows is, of course, doable as evidenced
> > by cygwin, and from a general theory seems like a pretty straight
> > forward thing to do (with a few low level tricks of course) but the
> > details are pretty scary.
> 
> How is Apache doing this?  I believe they do allow the pre-forked model to
> work, so how are they getting around those limitations?

Apache and PostgreSQL are quite different in their requirements of shared
memory. Apache (2.x) simply uses CreateProcess and passes duplicate file
handles.