On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:26 PM Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/17 13:03, Jeremy Finzel wrote: > > To be clear, what I mean is batch updating a large set of data in small > > pieces so as to avoid things like lock contention and replication lags. > > Sometimes these have a driving table that has the source data to update > > in a destination table based on a key column, but sometimes it is > > something like setting just a single specific value for a huge table. > > > > I would love instead to have a Postgres extension that uses postgres > > background workers to accomplish this, especially if it were part of > > core. Before I venture into exploring writing something like this as an > > extension, would this ever be considered something appropriate as an > > extension in Postgres core? Would that be appropriate? > > I don't see what the common ground between different variants of this > use case would be. Aren't you basically just looking to execute a > use-case-specific stored procedure in the background? > > -- > Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services The common ground is some column in some table needs to be bulk updated. I may not be explaining well, but in our environment we have done hundreds of these using a generic framework to build a backfill. So I’m not sure what you are questioning about the need? We have had to build a worker to accomplish this because it can’t be done as a sql script alone. I’m not sure what you mean by a stored procedure in the background. Since it would not be a single transaction, it doesn’t fit as a stored procedure at least in Postgres when a function is 1 transaction. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding. Thanks, Jeremy
