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
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
Fred Yankowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
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
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
