Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> 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.
I would guess that's an opt-in solution, as some other of our subprocess
are, much like autovacuum.
> 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.
I think the ticker was proposed as a minimal component allowing to be
developing the job system as an extension.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
