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? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
