On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> We've talked about a number of features that could benefit from some
>> kind of "worker process" facility (e.g. logical replication, parallel
>> query). So far no one has stepped forward to build such a facility,
>> and I think without that this can't even get off the ground.
> Well, this specific thing could be done by just having PG close the
> client connection, not care that it's gone, and have an implied
> 'commit;' at the end. I'm not saying that I like this approach, but I
> don't think it'd be hard to implement.
Maybe, but that introduces a lot of complications with regards to
things like authentication. We probably want some API for a backend
to say - hey, please spawn a session with the same user ID and
database association as me, and also provide some mechanism for data
transfer between the two processes.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Sim Zacks||Date: 2011-04-26 13:17:48|
|Subject: Re: Proposal - asynchronous functions|
|Previous:||From: Yves Weißig||Date: 2011-04-26 12:42:33|
|Subject: Re: operator classes for index?|