On 03/13/2012 02:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 03/13/2012 01:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried this actually (patch attached) but then I wanted to test it
>>> and couldn't find anything that used pgpipe() on Windows.
>>>
>>> pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c is using it but it's in an #ifndef WIN32
>>> and the same is true for postmaster/syslogger.c. Am I missing
>>> something or has this Windows implementation become stale by now? I'll
>>> append the patch but haven't adapted the pg_dump patch yet to use it.
>>> Should we still go forward the way you proposed?
>> Dunno. Can we get an opinion on that from one of the Windows guys?
>> Andrew, Magnus?
>>
>>
>
> I haven't had time to review this patch or even follow all the
> discussion as I was hoping. I'll try to review the whole thing shortly.
pgpipe used to be used in pgstat.c, but that's no longer true in any
live branch, so it's probably long dead. I'd be inclined to rip it out
if possible rather than expand its use.
I've just started looking at the patch, and I'm curious to know why it
didn't follow the pattern of parallel pg_restore which created a new
worker for each table rather than passing messages to looping worker
threads as this appears to do. That might have avoided a lot of the need
for this message passing infrastructure, if it could have been done. But
maybe I just need to review the patch and the discussions some more.
cheers
andrew