Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)
Дата
Msg-id 29928.1266868388@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)  (Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>)
Ответы Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)  (Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>)
Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)  (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>)
Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> writes:
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> API would be user_process_startup(), user_process_shutdown().

> so it should be a GUC, that is settable only at start time.
> we need those integrated processes at all when in a standby server?

This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.  The most
salient aspect of such processes is that they would necessarily run
as the postgres user, which means that you could never run any untrusted
code in them.  That cuts the space of "user problems" they could solve
way down.

I still haven't seen a good reason for not using cron or Task Scheduler
or other standard tools.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: What does this configure warning mean?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL