Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>
From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Artur Litwinowicz <admin@ybka.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-03-11T18:51:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > I don't want to have a server-side ticker at all, especially not one > that exists only for a client that might or might not be there. We've > been doing what we can to reduce PG's idle-power consumption, which is > an important consideration for large-data-center applications. Adding a > new source of periodic wakeups is exactly the wrong direction to be > going. I would guess that's an opt-in solution, as some other of our subprocess are, much like autovacuum. > There is no need for a ticker to drive a job system. It should be able > to respond to interrupts (if a NOTIFY comes in) and otherwise sleep > until the precalculated time that it next needs to launch a job. I think the ticker was proposed as a minimal component allowing to be developing the job system as an extension. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support