Re: Trigger that spawns forked process

From: Christopher Murtagh <christopher(dot)murtagh(at)mcgill(dot)ca>
To: Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Trigger that spawns forked process
Date: 2005-05-10 01:07:40
Message-ID: 1115687260.4795.6.camel@mafalda.corporateunderground.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 17:01 -0400, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Why not have a client connection LISTENing and doing the
> synchronization, and have the trigger use NOTIFY?
>
> Or, you could have the trigger write to a table, and have another
> client periodically scanning the table for new sync events.
>
> Either one of those would be simpler and more robust than fork()ing
> inside the backend.

How is writing a daemon simpler than using something that could be done
within Postgres? Forking is something that should be natural to Unix
systems, I shouldn't need to write another application to do this. I
don't see how a daemon would necessarily be more robust either.

Cheers,

Chris

--
Christopher Murtagh
Enterprise Systems Administrator
ISR / Web Service Group
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec
Canada

Tel.: (514) 398-3122
Fax: (514) 398-2017

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Murtagh 2005-05-10 01:12:29 Re: Trigger that spawns forked process
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-05-10 00:14:11 Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL