Re: [pgsql-www] NuSphere and PostgreSQL for windows
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-www] NuSphere and PostgreSQL for windows |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F72F487.7060603@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-www] NuSphere and PostgreSQL for windows (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-www] NuSphere and PostgreSQL for windows
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: