Tom Lane <t...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
