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

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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?

- -

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ron MayerDate: 2010-02-21 17:04:25
Subject: Re: scheduler in core
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-02-21 15:15:17
Subject: Re: getting to beta

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