Jason Tishler and I are planning to create a patch to allow PostgreSQL
to run directly as an NT service.  I've submitted a similar patch
which may well be incorporated into the next release of Cygipc, and
we've got a plan for doing the same for PostgreSQL:  see
http://ontosys.com/phiki/PostgresqlNtServiceDesign
I've vetted that plan past this group and have incorporated feedback.

Getting to my question:  Is it possible to create a CVS branch of the
HEAD (tip) of the PostgreSQL CVS for us to use in this work?

Having such a branch would allow Jason and I to coordinate our work
easily, and it also gives the pgsql-hackers community an easy way to
view (and review) our work.  Once/if the work is stable and approved,
we/someone could then use CVS tools to merge that branch back onto the
main line and cease any further work on that branch.

-- 
Fred Yankowski           fred@OntoSys.com      tel: +1.630.879.1312
Principal Consultant     www.OntoSys.com       fax: +1.630.879.1370
OntoSys, Inc             38W242 Deerpath Rd, Batavia, IL 60510, USA

Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:44:00 -0600
Fred Yankowski <fred@ontosys.com>
possible to create CVS branch for proposed patch?
Fred Yankowski <fred@ontosys.com> writes:
> Getting to my question:  Is it possible to create a CVS branch of the
> HEAD (tip) of the PostgreSQL CVS for us to use in this work?

It seems unlikely that this work is large enough to justify a branch.
Why don't you just work together and submit a patch when you are done?

We have talked about using branches for projects of the scale of the
planned querytree redesign, which would (a) hit most of the backend,
and (b) break everything until it's done, so other developers couldn't
get anything done meanwhile if it's done on the tip.  An NT-service
wrapper should not have either of those properties, seems to me.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:33:13 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: possible to create CVS branch for proposed patch? 
Fred Yankowski writes:

> Jason Tishler and I are planning to create a patch to allow PostgreSQL
> to run directly as an NT service.  I've submitted a similar patch
> which may well be incorporated into the next release of Cygipc, and
> we've got a plan for doing the same for PostgreSQL:  see
> http://ontosys.com/phiki/PostgresqlNtServiceDesign
> I've vetted that plan past this group and have incorporated feedback.

Seems like something that should be done in a separate wrapper program.
Littering the backend with vast sections of platform-specific code that
provides optional functional is probably not going to fly, if I can assess
this group correctly.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:43:25 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: possible to create CVS branch for proposed patch?
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 07:43:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Seems like something that should be done in a separate wrapper program.
> Littering the backend with vast sections of platform-specific code that
> provides optional functional is probably not going to fly, if I can assess
> this group correctly.

Our plan puts most of the work in a new NT/Cygwin-only version of
backend/main.c.  If we can use the existing signal() scheme to shut
down PG, then we might not have to touch _anything_ else.

What do you see in our plan that implies "vast sections of
platform-specific code" "littering the backend"?  If such changes are
necessary, I want to know before we embark on this work.

As far as this being "optional functional[ity]", I contend that
PostgreSQL has no place as a ready-for-business tool on NT without
this (or similar) work so that PG runs cleanly as a service, starting
up and shutting down properly.

-- 
Fred Yankowski           fred@OntoSys.com      tel: +1.630.879.1312
Principal Consultant     www.OntoSys.com       fax: +1.630.879.1370
OntoSys, Inc             38W242 Deerpath Rd, Batavia, IL 60510, USA

Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:49 -0600
Fred Yankowski <fred@ontosys.com>
Re: possible to create CVS branch for proposed patch?
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 07:43:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Seems like something that should be done in a separate wrapper program.
> > Littering the backend with vast sections of platform-specific code that
> > provides optional functional is probably not going to fly, if I can assess
> > this group correctly.
> 
> Our plan puts most of the work in a new NT/Cygwin-only version of
> backend/main.c.  If we can use the existing signal() scheme to shut
> down PG, then we might not have to touch _anything_ else.
> 
> What do you see in our plan that implies "vast sections of
> platform-specific code" "littering the backend"?  If such changes are
> necessary, I want to know before we embark on this work.
> 
> As far as this being "optional functional[ity]", I contend that
> PostgreSQL has no place as a ready-for-business tool on NT without
> this (or similar) work so that PG runs cleanly as a service, starting
> up and shutting down properly.

Agreed.  We just want to minimize the affect on other areas of the code.
We have been pretty good at keeping platform-specific stuff isolated.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:03:01 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: possible to create CVS branch for proposed patch?
Fred Yankowski writes:

> What do you see in our plan that implies "vast sections of
> platform-specific code" "littering the backend"?  If such changes are
> necessary, I want to know before we embark on this work.
>
> As far as this being "optional functional[ity]", I contend that
> PostgreSQL has no place as a ready-for-business tool on NT without
> this (or similar) work so that PG runs cleanly as a service, starting
> up and shutting down properly.

Having one program do different things on different platforms is something
that should be avoided at all costs, IMHO.  Every platform has its,
varyingly complex, requirements for starting daemons at boot time, but
still the backend is isolated from these considerations.  For that we have
pg_ctl, contrib/start-scripts, or other solutions.  Before I see specific
code I can't comment on your issue, but it's hard to imagine that a
wrapper program couldn't cover it.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:25:39 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: possible to create CVS branch for proposed patch?