Updated: cygrunsrv-0.92-2

Fred Yankowski fred@ontosys.com
Mon May 21 07:33:00 GMT 2001


On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:53:36AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> Would you be willing to pose this question to pgsql-cygwin@postgresql.org
> and possibly pgsql-ports@postgresql.org, to see if anyone (especially
> the core PostgreSQL development team) has a strong preference?

OK, I'll do that.  But so far I've received very little feedback from
the core PG team.  One note I do remember -- was it from Peter E? --
was strongly in favor of using a wrapper separate from PostgreSQL

> On the other hand, there is a certain appeal (at least to me) to
> have the UNIX daemon run as a true NT service without a wrapper.

I agree, particularly when the service can run without having to fork
into separate supervisory and application processes.  Unfortunately,
applications that use signals seem to require such a fork because
Cygwin signal handling currently does not play well with multiple
threads, and multiple threads are essential at the top level of the

> I was wondering whether or not it was worth it to structure cygrunsrv as
> a library and a "main."

I like that idea for the reasons you give.  However, the only current
NT-service-ized Cygwin process that would benefit from that is
ipc-daemon, and other posters gave me the impression that it's not
worth investing much more time in ipc-daemon (perhaps I misunderstood

Fred Yankowski           fred@OntoSys.com      tel: +1.630.879.1312
Principal Consultant     www.OntoSys.com       fax: +1.630.879.1370
OntoSys, Inc             38W242 Deerpath Rd, Batavia, IL 60510, USA

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list