| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Murtagh <christopher(dot)murtagh(at)mcgill(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Trigger that spawns forked process |
| Date: | 2005-05-10 03:24:37 |
| Message-ID: | 4130.1115695477@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Christopher Murtagh <christopher(dot)murtagh(at)mcgill(dot)ca> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 17:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... not to mention it would avoid the risk of propagating
>> not-yet-committed changes.
> How's that? If I can notify a daemon that the change is committed, then
> why couldn't I write a forking plperl function that executes when the
> transaction is done? How is one riskier than the other? Is there
> something obvious I'm missing here?
Yes: the mechanisms that are being suggested to you already exist.
There is not, AND NEVER WILL BE, any mechanism to invoke random
user-defined functions during the post-commit sequence. That code
sequence cannot afford to do anything that will potentially incur
errors.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-10 04:10:57 | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-05-10 03:21:54 | Re: [PHP] Any experiance with PostgreSQL and SQLRelay |