From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Katsaros Kwn/nos <ntinos(at)aueb(dot)gr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Networking feature for postgresql... |
Date: | 2004-10-14 08:57:55 |
Message-ID: | 416E3F93.7040302@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Katsaros Kwn/nos wrote:
> Well, actually no :) ! Thanks for the hint!
>
> But just from curiosity, would the scenario I described work?
> I mean is it possible for an SPI process to run in the background while
> other SPI calls are made?
I don't think so, you're running in a backend process, so you'd need to
fork the backend itself.
> On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 11:15, Richard Huxton wrote:
>
>>Katsaros Kwn/nos wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'm trying to add a -project specific- networking feature to my postgres
>>>build (or database as function). What I want to do is to send a Query
>>>instance (as a String-retrieved through an SPI function) to other
>>>machines and (after they have executed it) to receive result tuples.
>>>It's about a mediator-wrapper project. My first thought was to write 2
>>>SPI functions (one for the server (concurrent) and the other for client)
>>>but I'm not sure if this is going to work. I'm worried about setting up
>>>the server process running on the background while other SPI calls are
>>>made.
>>
>>Have you looked at the dblink code?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Juleni | 2004-10-14 08:58:36 | SELECT AFTER INSERT |
Previous Message | BARTKO | 2004-10-14 08:48:59 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-10-14 13:00:46 | Re: Why we still see some reports of "could not access transaction status" |
Previous Message | David Garamond | 2004-10-14 08:57:21 | Re: Embedded postgresql |