On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 18:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
>> > Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> >> Why not just use pgAgent? It's far more flexible than the design
>> >> you've suggested, and already exists.
>> > What would it take to have it included in core,
>> I don't think this really makes sense. There's basically no argument
>> for having it in core other than "I'm too lazy to install a separate
>> package". Unlike the case for autovacuum, there isn't anything an
>> in-core implementation could do that an external one doesn't do as well
>> or better. So I'm not eager to take on additional maintenance burden
>> for such a thing.
> There is currently no way to run a separate daemon process that runs
> user code as part of Postgres, so that the startup code gets run
> immediately we startup, re-run if we crash and shut down cleanly when
> the server does.
> If there were some way to run arbitrary code in a
> daemon using an extensibility API then we wouldn't ever get any requests
> for the scheduler, cos you could write it yourself without troubling
> anybody here.
That might be a little overly optimistic, but I get the point.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-21 18:14:00|
|Subject: Re: WAL-support for Pluggable Indexes |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-02-21 18:13:14|
|Subject: Re: scheduler in core|