Re: sending mail from Postgres
От | Tony Caduto |
---|---|
Тема | Re: sending mail from Postgres |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 43B84F3B.3050805@amsoftwaredesign.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: sending mail from Postgres (Tino Wildenhain <tino@wildenhain.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: sending mail from Postgres
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Tino Wildenhain wrote: > > We do not talk about exceptions here. I'm talking about transactions. > And you never know who will be aborting a transaction after your > call to the function. No need for referral to the fine manuals :-) > Common Tino, you let users abort transactions? Who else is going to be aborting transactions besides you the programmer? I would never allow that as they would mess everything up. I only abort transactions in my end user apps when the server throws a error, I then evaluate that error and take appropriate action. That's why having exceptions in your function would work. You are inviting trouble letting users control when a transaction ends or starts for that matter, they have a tendency to leave them in a non commited state for long periods of time. Transactions need to be short and sweet. Sure a very long latency email might slow up a transaction for a second or two, but like I said for a internal use corporate app, you will never even see one second to send a email. It all depends on your app what will work best. There is nothing wrong with sending a email directly from a trigger or function. If you really need to scale there are better ways, but for 99 percent of apps the way I suggested will work fine and dandy. I myself, for a high volume email notifictation system would probably use some form of a queue, but that would be severe overkill for the majority of apps, if it's not broke don't fix it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree :-) Later, Tony
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: