Christopher Murtagh <christopher.murtagh@mcgill.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
