On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:02 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:17:48PM +0300, Sim Zacks wrote: >>> On 04/26/2011 03:15 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> >>> >On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Sim Zacks<s...@compulab.co.il> wrote: >>> >>Asynchronous functions >>> >> >>> >>*Problem* >>> >>Postgresql does not have support for asynchronous function calls. >>> >Well, there is asynchronous support from the client of course. Thus >>> >you can set up a asynchronous call back to the database with dblink. >>> >There is some discussion about formalizing this feature -- you might >>> >want to read up on autonomous transactions and how they might be used >>> >to do what you are proposing. >>> > >>> >merlin >>> I am looking for specifically server support and not client support. >>> Part of the proposal is that if the client goes away, it will still >>> continue to finish. >> >> This is exactly autonomous transactions. Please read this thread to >> see how. >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00893.php > > It's not the same thing at all. An autonomous function is (or appears > to be) two simultaneous toplevel transactions within the same backend. > This is a request for an *asynchronous* function, which would run > concurrently with foreground processing.
It's not exactly the same, but in the greater spirit of things I think David is correct. If you make async dblink call, you get parallel processing from a single function entry point. Autonomous transaction implementations I've heard are basically taking this approach and de-kludging it, and give you a lot of the same stuff, like being able to do work in parallel. I'm curious if the feature meets the OP's requirements. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
