Re: APR 1.0 released

Tom Lane wrote:

> Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
>
>>now that Apache Portable Runtime was release why don't
>>use it on Postgres?
>
>
> The sense of the question is backwards. Why *should* we use it?

In order to avoid all the annoyance that someone else had in
write code portable. I mean, how much time ( I'm not a postgres
developer, I like to think, for lack of time ) was spent in order
to port postgres to win32 ? Don't you think that use of APR could
save time ?

Andrew: about the green cheese, why not remake the moon with it
if this have some benefit ?

Marc: you are not obliged to change APR version each eye blink.
Don't you think that use a portable library could save time ?

One example for all: actually postgres is multi process, some time
I see my server with 3 CPU in holiday and one overloaded to sort
thousand rows. Don't you think in some cases spawn a couple of
thread could improve it ? Let me dream that you agree on this and
may be in years someone start to do it ( I'm using postgres since
when "create or replace function" or "table functions" was a blasphemy
so I'm sure that will happen). What are you going to do? Reinvent
the hell and create a sort of framework to work with thread dealing
with Win32 world ? I don't know if APR provide a spin lock mechanism,
tell me how many times did you see discussion here on hackers about
on how make the spin lock effective?
In my experience I'm a C++ developer and each time I have to do
something I full rely on STL, BOOST, XALAN, XERCES and may be I'll
use the APR now that seem stable enough and I swear each time my
colleagues are reinventing the list, queue, thread interactions....

Regards
Gaetano Mendola