Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs processes - The Apache Way (Re: Path to PostgreSQL

2002-05-10 Thread mlw
Tom Lane wrote: > > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Without some buy-in from the core team, I'm not sure I am willing to spend my > > time on it. If someone would be willing to fund the 100 or so man-hours > > required to do it, then that would be a different story. > > You are not going to

Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs processes - The Apache Way (Re: Path to PostgreSQL

2002-05-10 Thread Tom Lane
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Without some buy-in from the core team, I'm not sure I am willing to spend my > time on it. If someone would be willing to fund the 100 or so man-hours > required to do it, then that would be a different story. You are not going to get any buy-in with such ridicu

Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs processes - The Apache Way (Re: Path to PostgreSQL

2002-05-10 Thread mlw
Robert wrote: > > Hi, > > Win32 & threads support are both going to be a lot of work and maybe > we'll need in the future one or both - is there any chance Postgres > developers look at the Apache experience? Briefly, Apache 2 had the some > problems as are discussed here (need to support Win,