Re: scheduler in core

From: Lucas <lucas75(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
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 15:17:50
Message-ID: cccdaefb1002210717l1cf6c773wf4155d9798d1249f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

- -
Lucas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Mayer 2010-02-21 17:04:25 Re: scheduler in core
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-02-21 15:15:17 Re: getting to beta