Re: win32 service code
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: win32 service code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE34BB59@algol.sollentuna.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | win32 service code ("Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> My 2c, I'll add mine as well.. > > 1) Separate binary "pgservice.exe" that will CreateProcess() the > > postmaster.exe. > > Advantages: Zero impact on postmaster code. Simple to do. > > Disadvantages: Adds a platform-specific binary. > > My preference. Personally, I think we should make this pg_ctl. That sounds like a good idea. > > 2) Include in postmaster doing an extra CreateProcess(). > > Advantages: No extra binary. Low impact on postmaster code. > > Disadvantages: Two postmaster.exe:s. running (confusing? overhead?) > > This is what I've currently got. I pretty much hate seeing > two postmaster.exe/s running. In my opinion, this is the worst idea. > > 3) Include in postmaster but running on a separate thread > (not process > > as > (2)) > > Advantages: No extra binary. No extra process. Most integration. > > Disadvantages: Probably larger impact on postmaster code. > > IMHO, the worst of all options. Since there is only very little stuff gonig on in a different thread, I don't think this is the worst idea at all. For me, 1 and 3 are about as good. > I'm itching to throw this code somewhere :-) Yay :-) From what I can read of the people that post it, it seems option 1 is probably the most popular one. So unless someone objects, I suggest you move down that path :-) (It shouldn't be that much work moving yuor stuff from postmaster, AFAICS) //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers-win32 по дате отправления: