Re: background triggers?

From: Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com>
To: Kenneth Downs <ken(at)secdat(dot)com>
Cc: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: background triggers?
Date: 2006-05-24 12:29:51
Message-ID: 1148473793.20217.128.camel@model.home.waw.pl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 07:41 -0400, Kenneth Downs wrote:
> >
> Why not have the INSERT go to an "inbox" table, a table whose only job
> is to receive the data for future processing.

Actually, it 'sort of' works that way.

> Your client code should mark all rows with a batch number as they go
> in. Then when the batch is loaded, simply invoke a stored procedure to
> process them. Pass the stored procedure the batch number.

If I have that stored procedure and if I issue command that would launch
such stored procedure from "psql>" prompt: how long will I have to wait
for another prompt? 1) until the procedure ends its job. 2) right away,
the procedure does its job unabidedly 'in the background'.

My impression was, that I get the next prompt after the procedure
finishes, so it wouldn't be a solution. But if (2) applies, that is
really it.... Frankly, it would take me some time to get back to those
sources (and generate simulation data) - so anybody knows the answer?

-R

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2006-05-24 12:32:34 Re: compiling source code!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2006-05-24 12:26:57 Re: Clearing out old idle connections