On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:45:47 +0200 jacques klein <jacques.k...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well, sorry David, I don't understand what you mean, > > let me explain what I want to do: in short, IPC between "background > workers". > > I am trying to transform my app. from a multi-threaded C SQL-client into > some "background workers", execution speed beeing the goal (avoid > network io). > Worker start/stopping is nicely solved by server start/stop, but I have > also to do some messaging/notifying between my worker processes, and > would like to use a Postgres based solution instead of the usual unix or > network ipc, or course by avoiding polling (tables acting as message > queues). I think what David is saying, and what I would suggest, is the following: * It's not possible to have a trigger execute in the background * Create a background job that runs perpetually and listens for notification that it has work to do (i.e. it sleeps until notified) * Notify the job from the trigger > On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 10:01 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:37:31PM +0200, jacques klein wrote: > > > I would like to execute a trigger function (written in C) in one of my > > > background workers. > > > > > > Didn't figure out how to do that not even if it's possible. > > > > You can write your trigger function in such a way as not to do the > > usual check for trigger context, but it might be better to write two > > functions, one with the trigger stuff in it, the other, which it > > calls, for whatever action you actually want to trigger, and call that > > second in your background worker. > > > > Cheers, > > David. > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Bill Moran <wmo...@potentialtech.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
