Christopher Murtagh <christopher.murtagh@mcgill.ca> writes:
> No, I don't want the trigger to do any db stuff at all. Basically, I've
> got a content management system that is going to be split across a
> cluster. Upon an update submission from one of them, I want to replicate
> across the others (which can happen in pseudo real time). So, basically
> the DB is the master, once it makes an update, it will spawn a process
> to the syncronization (all of this code is written). I just don't want
> the initial update process to wait for replication to finish (which is
> only a second or two under normal load). I could write a daemon that
> would sit an listen to these replication requests, but that just seems
> to be more complex than I need.
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.
-Doug
