| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: scheduler in core |
| Date: | 2010-03-01 21:43:41 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f071003011343ob5ec859s7b9855a28270db64@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> IMNSHO, an 'in core' scheduler would be useful. however, I think
> before you tackle a scheduler, we need proper stored procedures. Our
> existing functions don't cut it because you can manage the transaction
> state yourself.
Did you mean that you "can't" manage the transaction state yourself?
Has anyone given any thought to what would be required to relax this
restriction? Is this totally impossible given our architecture, or
just a lack of round tuits?
See also: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-porting.html#PLPGSQL-PORTING-EXCEPTIONS
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-03-01 21:49:53 | Re: scheduler in core |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-03-01 21:40:40 | Re: function side effects |