| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Listen / Notify - what to do when the queue is full |
| Date: | 2010-01-19 23:41:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1263944489.13109.27.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 11:43 +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> Examples:
>
> Backend 1: Backend 2:
>
> transaction starts
> NOTIFY foo;
> commit starts
> transaction starts
> LISTEN foo;
> commit starts
> commit to clog
> commit to clog
>
> => Backend 2 will receive Backend 1's notification.
How does the existing notification mechanism solve this problem? Is it
really a problem? Why would Backend2 expect to receive the notification?
>
> Backend 1: Backend 2:
>
> transaction starts
> NOTIFY foo;
> commit starts
> transaction starts
> UNLISTEN foo;
> commit starts
> commit to clog
> commit to clog
>
> => Backend 2 will not receive Backend 1's notification.
This is the same problem, except that it doesn't matter. A spurious
notification is not a bug, right?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-19 23:55:08 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-19 23:40:05 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |