Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> sure, I get that, especially in regards to procedures. a server
> ticker though is a pretty small thing and it's fair to ask if maybe
> that should be exposed instead of (or perhaps in addition to) a job
> scheduling system.
I don't want to have a server-side ticker at all, especially not one
that exists only for a client that might or might not be there. We've
been doing what we can to reduce PG's idle-power consumption, which is
an important consideration for large-data-center applications. Adding a
new source of periodic wakeups is exactly the wrong direction to be
going.
There is no need for a ticker to drive a job system. It should be able
to respond to interrupts (if a NOTIFY comes in) and otherwise sleep
until the precalculated time that it next needs to launch a job.
regards, tom lane
