Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. The most
>> salient aspect of such processes is that they would necessarily run
>> as the postgres user
> The precedent are archive and restore command. They do run as postgres
> user too, don't they?
Well, yeah, but you *must* trust those commands because every last bit
of your database content passes through their hands. That is not an
argument why you need to trust a scheduling facility --- much less the
tasks it schedules.
I still say that every use case so far presented here would be equally
if not better served outside the database. Putting it inside just
creates more failure scenarios and security risks.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
