| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core) |
| Date: | 2010-02-22 19:53:08 |
| Message-ID: | 29928.1266868388@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> writes:
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> API would be user_process_startup(), user_process_shutdown().
> so it should be a GUC, that is settable only at start time.
> we need those integrated processes at all when in a standby server?
This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. The most
salient aspect of such processes is that they would necessarily run
as the postgres user, which means that you could never run any untrusted
code in them. That cuts the space of "user problems" they could solve
way down.
I still haven't seen a good reason for not using cron or Task Scheduler
or other standard tools.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-22 19:57:01 | Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-22 19:48:19 | Re: What does this configure warning mean? |