Re: pg_background contrib module proposal

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin(at)acm(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_background contrib module proposal
Date: 2017-02-02 03:03:20
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTWwxfAQkfwTVE2Dex1mzSyX=7Qs_vA2hC73hoOcqpo3g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 1/19/17 12:47 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>> 4. There is some controversy on where implemented feature shall be: in separate extension (as in this patch), in db_link, in some PL API, in FDW or somewhere else. I think that new extension is an appropriate place for the feature. But I’m not certain.
>>
>> I suppose we should decide first whether we want pg_background as a
>> separate extension or rather pursue extending dblink as proposed elsewhere.
>>
>> I don't know if pg_background allows any use case that dblink can't
>> handle (yet).
>
> For the record, I have no big problem with extending dblink to allow
> this instead of adding pg_background. But I think we should try to
> get one or the other done in time for this release.

Moved to CF 2017-03 as the discussion is not over yet.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-02-02 03:06:10 Re: autonomous transactions
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2017-02-02 03:02:15 Re: Cannot shutdown subscriber after DROP SUBSCRIPTION