Magnus Hagander wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Last I spoke with Claudio, he was still waiting for some reactions from
>others than me on how we want the service code. So I figured I'd post a
>recap of the options we have. I've added some advantages/disadvantages,
>but those are my thoughts only. There are sure to be others.
>
>
>1) Separate binary "pgservice.exe" that will CreateProcess() the
>postmaster.exe.
>Advantages: Zero impact on postmaster code. Simple to do.
>Disadvantages: Adds a platform-specific binary.
>
>2) Include in postmaster doing an extra CreateProcess().
>Advantages: No extra binary. Low impact on postmaster code.
>Disadvantages: Two postmaster.exe:s. running (confusing? overhead?)
>
>3) Include in postmaster but running on a separate thread (not process
>as (2))
>Advantages: No extra binary. No extra process. Most integration.
>Disadvantages: Probably larger impact on postmaster code.
>
>
>As said, I've probably missed some in adv/disadv, but I think I got all
>our options.
>
>
Could we combine 1 and 2? We already have the postmaster/postgres
distinction in what is in fact the same binary. Of course, there might
be an undesirable memory impact - not sure how good Windows is at shared
memory.
I'm a fan of low impact, but I have no strong opinion on this.
cheers
andrew