Tom Lane writes:
BTW, I've been wondering lately if we'd not be better off to look at
using threading in the Windows port, if it'd help us get around the
fork/exec data transfer problem. I'm not sure that it would,
mind you, but if it would give an answer it might be a lot less painful
than
Claudio Natoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, I've got a threaded version of the WIN32_DEV branch more or less
running (it is a terrible hack job, so NO, no patches... yet :-), as a
proof of concept. Still a work in progress (ok, I've qualified it enough),
but it is showing enough promise to
Claudio Natoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, I've got a threaded version of the WIN32_DEV branch more or less
running (it is a terrible hack job, so NO, no patches... yet :-), as a
proof of concept. Still a work in progress (ok, I've qualified it
enough),
but it is showing enough
Claudio Natoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How are you dealing with the issue of wanting some static variables to
be per-thread and others not?
To be perfectly honest, I'm still trying to familiarize myself with the code
sufficiently well so that I can tell which variables need to be per-thread
Tom Lane wrote:
Claudio Natoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How are you dealing with the issue of wanting some static variables to
be per-thread and others not?
To be perfectly honest, I'm still trying to familiarize myself with the code
sufficiently well so that I can tell which
Momjian; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes (was: NuSphere and PostgreSQL
for windows)
Claudio Natoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, I've got a threaded version of the WIN32_DEV branch more or less
running (it is a terrible hack job, so
Keith Bottner wrote:
Typically variables that you want to be per-thread are stored in what
Microsoft calls Thread Local Storage (TLS). Variables that you want shared
you can just treat as globals and statics with the appropriate threading
synchronization primitives. With Windows 2000 and later
