

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from 
> core can indicate
> > how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code
> > rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this.
> 
> 	http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.html

No, sorry, I should have been clearer. Here I was referring specifically to
the fork/exec parts, not the entire porting effort.

[I remembered a post of yours of a few weeks ago, mentioning that the
fork/exec bits might be in in "a few weeks"; something along the lines of
that it was taking you a while not due to "issues", but simply a lack of
time (can't find the exact message; might be mis-remembering)]

Probably something you are close to completing, but if not, and you can
describe how you'd prefer any rearrangement, I'm happy taking this one.

Cheers,
Claudio


--- 
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see 
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>

Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:10:29 +1100
Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Claudio Natoli wrote:
> 
> 
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > > Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from 
> > core can indicate
> > > how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code
> > > rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this.
> > 
> > 	http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.html
> 
> No, sorry, I should have been clearer. Here I was referring specifically to
> the fork/exec parts, not the entire porting effort.
> 
> [I remembered a post of yours of a few weeks ago, mentioning that the
> fork/exec bits might be in in "a few weeks"; something along the lines of
> that it was taking you a while not due to "issues", but simply a lack of
> time (can't find the exact message; might be mis-remembering)]
> 
> Probably something you are close to completing, but if not, and you can
> describe how you'd prefer any rearrangement, I'm happy taking this one.

I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen.  It requires we
find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the
child run those same routines.  I can show you examples of what I have
done and walk you through areas that need work.  If you look at the
EXEC_BACKEND defines in CVS, you can see what I have done so far.  We
need to have EXEC_BACKEND working on Unix first, then we can add the
CreateProcess call on Win32, so all this can be done on Unix first.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:18:38 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we
>
>find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the
>child run those same routines.  I can show you examples of what I have
>done and walk you through areas that need work.  If you look at the
>EXEC_BACKEND defines in CVS, you can see what I have done so far.  We
>need to have EXEC_BACKEND working on Unix first, then we can add the
>CreateProcess call on Win32, so all this can be done on Unix first.
>  
>

How is EXEC_BACKEND going to be enabled? A configure option? A global 
define?

cheers

andrew



Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:54:08 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we
> >
> >find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the
> >child run those same routines.  I can show you examples of what I have
> >done and walk you through areas that need work.  If you look at the
> >EXEC_BACKEND defines in CVS, you can see what I have done so far.  We
> >need to have EXEC_BACKEND working on Unix first, then we can add the
> >CreateProcess call on Win32, so all this can be done on Unix first.
> >  
> >
> 
> How is EXEC_BACKEND going to be enabled? A configure option? A global 
> define?

We will use it for testing to make sure Unix can work with exec(), then
we add CreateProcess and make EXEC_BACKEND defined for that platform.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:58:16 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?