Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Artur Litwinowicz <admin(at)ybka(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database
Date: 2012-03-05 20:17:40
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAsFMqqShS=zvipxm7QsEsKCzMWgB1YrP1LUPAKt=cXFw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello

2012/3/5 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
>
> Excerpts from Artur Litwinowicz's message of lun mar 05 16:18:56 -0300 2012:
>> Dear Developers,
>>    I am looking for elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a
>> database or cluster - for now I can not find that solution.
>
> Yeah, it'd be good to have something.  Many people say it's not
> necessary, and probably some hackers would oppose it; but mainly I think
> we just haven't agreed (or even discussed) what the design of such a
> scheduler would look like.  For example, do we want it to be able to
> just connect and run queries and stuff, or do we want something more
> elaborate able to start programs such as running pg_dump?  What if the
> program crashes -- should it cause the server to restart?  And so on.
> It's not a trivial problem.
>

I agree - it is not simple

* workflow support
* dependency support

a general ACID scheduler can be nice (in pg) but it is not really
simple. There was some proposal about using autovacuum demon like
scheduler.

Pavel

> --
> Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-03-05 20:30:13 Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match"
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-03-05 20:10:46 Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"