Re: Scheduled jobs

Hi

-*- Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com> [ 2003-05-13 20:38 ]:
> Tolli wrote:
> "Nice" does not dictate "Someone should be responsible for the
> implementation."
>
> In the old fable about the mice and the cat, it would sure be "nice" if
> they could put a bell on the cat so the mice could hear the cat coming.
> But in the fable, none of the mice were prepared to risk life and limb
> getting the bell put onto the cat.
>
> In this case, the fact that you'd like a scheduler does not imply that
> anyone will want to take the job on.

As I said in my original reply to Tom: "Just mentioning some pros I see -- I do agree with your point on resources and future maintenance."

The point being, which I might have stated explicitly, that if someone (for example Zlatko who originally suggested it) will go on implementing it, I believe it helps is indeed good. Weather or not it should be included in the main distribution is a matter of a totally seperate debate later on. :-)

> > I believe you have to be authenticated to *create* jobs... and would
> > probably run as the owner, if it gets implemented.
>
> No, these "jobs" would run as the "postgres" user. (Or whatever user
> it is that the PostgreSQL server runs as.)
>
> And there enters a *big* whack of complexity, particularly if that
> isn't the right answer.

Eeek! What I've been thinking about all along is something for running, err, SQL (which therefor can be run as the owner) or some internal tasks -- nothing with external processes.

> It rapidly turns into a *very* complex system that, even with MS-SQL
> and Oracle, isn't really part of the database. Why is it complex?
> Because of the need to be able to change user roles to different
> system users, which is inherently system-dependent (e.g. - very
> different between Unix and Windows) and *highly* security-sensitive.
>
> I agree with the thoughts that it would be a slick idea to come up
> with a way of having PostgreSQL be the "data store" for some outside
> scheduling tool. You likely won't have something that anyone will
> have compete with Cron or Maestro or [whatever they call the Windows
> 'scheduler'], but it could be useful to those that care. And by
> keeping it separate, those of us that don't care don't get a bloated
> system.

I sincerely agree that I'd not like to see PostgreSQL bloated with a cron-wannabe. ;-)

--
Regards,
Tolli
tolli(at)tol(dot)li