2010/2/20 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
> We're not going to change that because some companies have
> insane corporate policies.
I agree, Andrew...
This is an outside benefit...
not a reason or justification...
I believe that a general purpose scheduler is similar to
the autovacuum... it is not really needed, we can
always configure an external scheduler.
But I liked a LOT...
For me is not a question of "must be in core" is a
question of cost/benefit. I do not see much cost,
but a lot of benefits:
Like Joshua said "abstract away from external solutions
and operating system dependencies".
Like Dimitri said "Main advantage over cron or another
scheduler being that it'd be part of my transactional backups".
To me is the reliability of having the partition creation/removal
being part of the database, be able of make consolidations,
cleanups and periodic consistency checks and diagnostics
without external dependencies.
I wonder if the scheduler already existed before the
implementation of the autovacuum, its implementation would
not be a function executed by the in-core scheduler?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Ron Mayer||Date: 2010-02-21 17:04:25|
|Subject: Re: scheduler in core|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-21 15:15:17|
|Subject: Re: getting to beta|