On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> >> wrote: >> > What I'm yet unsure about is that there's a consensus that the use cases >> > are worthy of a new shared catalog in the system. Also I didn't look how >> > hard it is to actually provide for it. >> >> A new shared catalog wouldn't actually help, because the actual >> procedure to be run has to live in pg_proc, which is not shared. And >> that has references to all sorts of other things (like pg_language) >> that aren't shared either. > > A shared catalog which defined which *database* to run the trigger in, > with a way to fire off a new backend worker in that database and tell it > to run the trigger, might be interesting and would deal with the issue > that the trigger would behave differently depending on the database > connected to. That would bring along other issues, of course, but it > seemed an interesting enough idea to mention.
Eh, maybe. I'm not sure there's enough use case for that to justify the amount of infrastructure it would require. I'm happy with the recent enhancements to background workers, but there's an awful lot of ground to cover between that and what you're proposing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
