Re: Scheduled jobs
От | Þórhallur Hálfdánarson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Scheduled jobs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030513210916.C31225@tol.li обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Scheduled jobs (Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Scheduled jobs
("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi -*- Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com> [ 2003-05-13 20:38 ]: > Tolli wrote: > "Nice" does not dictate "Someone should be responsible for the > implementation." > > In the old fable about the mice and the cat, it would sure be "nice" if > they could put a bell on the cat so the mice could hear the cat coming. > But in the fable, none of the mice were prepared to risk life and limb > getting the bell put onto the cat. > > In this case, the fact that you'd like a scheduler does not imply that > anyone will want to take the job on. As I said in my original reply to Tom: "Just mentioning some pros I see -- I do agree with your point on resources and futuremaintenance." The point being, which I might have stated explicitly, that if someone (for example Zlatko who originally suggested it) willgo on implementing it, I believe it helps is indeed good. Weather or not it should be included in the main distributionis a matter of a totally seperate debate later on. :-) > > I believe you have to be authenticated to *create* jobs... and would > > probably run as the owner, if it gets implemented. > > No, these "jobs" would run as the "postgres" user. (Or whatever user > it is that the PostgreSQL server runs as.) > > And there enters a *big* whack of complexity, particularly if that > isn't the right answer. Eeek! What I've been thinking about all along is something for running, err, SQL (which therefor can be run as the owner)or some internal tasks -- nothing with external processes. > It rapidly turns into a *very* complex system that, even with MS-SQL > and Oracle, isn't really part of the database. Why is it complex? > Because of the need to be able to change user roles to different > system users, which is inherently system-dependent (e.g. - very > different between Unix and Windows) and *highly* security-sensitive. > > I agree with the thoughts that it would be a slick idea to come up > with a way of having PostgreSQL be the "data store" for some outside > scheduling tool. You likely won't have something that anyone will > have compete with Cron or Maestro or [whatever they call the Windows > 'scheduler'], but it could be useful to those that care. And by > keeping it separate, those of us that don't care don't get a bloated > system. I sincerely agree that I'd not like to see PostgreSQL bloated with a cron-wannabe. ;-) -- Regards, Tolli tolli@tol.li
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: