| From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jason Tishler <jason(at)tishler(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |
| Date: | 2002-06-03 13:36:51 |
| Message-ID: | 3CFB70F3.63AE630B@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jason Tishler wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:33:57PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > mlw wrote:
> > > > Like I told Marc, I don't care. You spec out what you want and I'll write
> > > > it for Windows.
> > > >
> > > > That being said, a SysV IPC interface for native Windows would be kind of
> > > > cool to have.
> > >
> > > I am wondering why we don't just use the Cygwin shm/sem code in our
> > > project, or maybe the Apache stuff; why bother reinventing the wheel.
> >
> > but! in the course of testing some code, I managed to gain some experience
> > with cygwin. I have seen fork() problems with a large number of processes.
>
> Since Cygwin's fork() is implemented with WaitForMultipleObjects(),
> it has a limitation of only 63 children per parent. Also, there can
> be DLL base address conflicts (causing Cygwin fork() to fail) that are
> avoidable by rebasing the appropriate DLLs. AFAICT, Cygwin PostgreSQL is
> currently *not* affected by this issue where as other Cygwin applications
> such as Python and Apache are.
Why would not PostgreSQL be affected by this?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-06-03 13:44:38 | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |
| Previous Message | Jason Tishler | 2002-06-03 13:28:48 | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |