Re: Trigger that spawns forked process - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Christopher Murtagh
Subject Re: Trigger that spawns forked process
Date
Msg-id 1115687260.4795.6.camel@mafalda.corporateunderground.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Trigger that spawns forked process  (Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org>)
Responses Re: Trigger that spawns forked process  (Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org>)
Re: Trigger that spawns forked process  ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>)
List 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


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
Next
From: Christopher Murtagh
Date:
Subject: Re: Trigger that spawns forked process