| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Notify enhancement |
| Date: | 2006-12-04 15:12:05 |
| Message-ID: | 16952.1165245125@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> This will run into the same issue that bidirectional pipes run into with
> deadlocks. The usual approach in Unix for dealing with this is having the
> application always -- even while blocked trying to write -- read any pending
> input and buffer it in user-space until it has enough to proceed. This may be
> hard to arrange in SQL? I think you would need a way for a PL/pgsql to escape
> a blocking write and read any pending notifications.
None of that is any different from the situation with sinval
messaging.
Note BTW that writes to the buffer will happen only in a very
circumscribed place (at COMMIT) so your worries about plpgsql
seem misplaced.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-04 15:13:39 | Re: Notify enhancement |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2006-12-04 15:10:11 | Re: Facing a problem with SPI |