On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 18:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> writes: > > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: > >> Why not just use pgAgent? It's far more flexible than the design > >> you've suggested, and already exists. > > > What would it take to have it included in core, > > I don't think this really makes sense. There's basically no argument > for having it in core other than "I'm too lazy to install a separate > package". Unlike the case for autovacuum, there isn't anything an > in-core implementation could do that an external one doesn't do as well > or better. So I'm not eager to take on additional maintenance burden > for such a thing.
There is zero technical reason for this to be in core. That doesn't mean it isn't a really good idea. It would be nice to have a comprehensive job scheduling solution that allows me to continue abstract away from external solutions and operating system dependencies. Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
