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
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 |