| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lucas <lucas75(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: scheduler in core |
| Date: | 2010-02-21 00:40:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4B808112.1020402@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Lucas wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I believe that "in core" may be "installed by default" in case of
> the pgAgent or similar solution...
>
> Many big companies does not allow the developers to configure and
> install components.... we need to request everthing in 10 copies
> of forms...
>
> By making it "in core" or "installed by default" means that we
> have more chance that the db scheduler would be widely accepted...
>
>
This reasoning just doesn't fly in the PostgreSQL world. PostgreSQL is
designed to be extensible, not a monolithic product. We're not going to
change that because some companies have insane corporate policies. The
answer, as Jefferson said in another context, is to "inform their
ignorance."
That isn't to say that there isn't a case for an in core scheduler, but
this at least isn't a good reason for it.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2010-02-21 00:44:32 | Re: scheduler in core |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2010-02-21 00:40:30 | Re: scheduler in core |