Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: scheduler in core

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, 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: 2010-02-22 20:15:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure escribió:
>> Like I noted above, what people want to schedule is going to be stored
>> procedures.  Having both would virtually eliminate the need for
>> scripting outside the database, which is a pretty big deal since
>> external scripts are a real pain to keep cross platform.  Since
>> there's probably a lot of overlapping problems in those two features,
>> why not tackle both at once?
> Divide and conquer?

When I meant 'tackle', it is more of a 'come to an understanding'
thing.  Normally I would agree with you anyways, but I think what most
people would want to schedule would be stored procedures (sorry to
continually repeat myself here, but I really think this should be
critical to any scheduling proposal), not functions or ad hoc scripts.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-22 20:24:54
Subject: Re: Reason why set-value functions not allowed in GREATEST(), etc?
Previous:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2010-02-22 20:10:15
Subject: Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group