On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:08 PM, wam<[email protected]> wrote: > I'm > considering setting up a new tube which my worker processes will write > into saying that they are now handling job X and finished with job X, > and a status process monitors that queue building a representation of > my current work queues. However, I was hoping there was a cleaner way.
That's not a bad plan. The technique you describe is pretty powerful. (It will be easier to manage when Erlang-style mailbox tubes are implemented.) > Ideally, I'd like to be able to just peek() at every job in the queue > by iterating over the job ids. However, although there is a 'total- > jobs' which gives me the upper bound of the job range, there doesn't > seem to be a minimum job id for to use, and looping from 1 through all > job ids that have already been deleted seems like a very poor option. > If the server stats listed the minimum-job id on the server, this > would be a much simpler task that I could just mostly accomplish with > 'peek()' and a loop. It's not cheap to report the minimum job id accurately, but maybe beanstalkd could provide a lower bound that is updated every so often. That seems like it would fit your needs. kr --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beanstalk-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beanstalk-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
