Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>What are the current plans regarding running PG as a
>>>
>>>
>>service? A wrapper,
>>
>>
>>>or integrated code? If a wrapper, will it be put in the
>>>
>>>
>>core, or done as
>>
>>
>>>something like a contrib or pgfoundry project?
>>>
>>>
>>IF a wrapper, should be pgfoundry ... *but*, wouldn't integratd by
>>cleaner?
>>
>>
>
>IF it should go to pgfoundry in that case, I'd say it *has* to be
>integrated :-)
>
>*Everybody* on win32 will expect this. No matter if they download source
>or binaries or MSI installer. If we don't provide it in the main
>install, people will see that as a major feature lacking that has to be
>fixed by an external package.
>
I agree. This is necessary to run postgres in any non-development
environment. It's the standard Windows way to run a daemon.
>
>As for which - the current code (submitted by Claudio) does an "extra
>fork/exec" on the postmaster, basically making the postmaster a wrapper
>for itself (correct me if I remember incorrectly here Claudio - seems
>the archives.postgresql.org server is down ATM, and I can't find the
>patch locally). If so, I think it would actualliy be slightly cleaner to
>have it in a separate binary (that still does all the signal translation
>we need, of course).
>
Presumably a wrapper would have a much smaller memory footprint than an
extra copy of postmaster. That seems a good reason to break it out.
>But as I think I've said before, I think the two ways are fairly equal
>overall. But it *has* to go in the main distro.
>
>
>
The reason I asked is that there is a request for a pgfoundry project
for a service wrapper, and I wondered if instead we should ask the
author to send in a patch for the core.
cheers
andrew