Re: Proposal - asynchronous functions

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> We've talked about a number of features that could benefit from some
> kind of "worker process" facility (e.g. logical replication, parallel
> query). So far no one has stepped forward to build such a facility,
> and I think without that this can't even get off the ground.

Well, this specific thing could be done by just having PG close the
client connection, not care that it's gone, and have an implied
'commit;' at the end. I'm not saying that I like this approach, but I
don't think it'd be hard to implement.

What I don't think we saw was any information about how, exactly, the OP
was planning to implement this in the backend.

Thanks,

Stephen