Re: psql patch

From: "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: psql patch
Date: 2003-02-24 18:13:43
Message-ID: 20030224181343.GE97071@xs4all.nl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> Not without help from the backend --- you have no idea whether a LISTEN
> command might have been executed via some user-defined function.

True. Hadn't thought of that. The backend does identify a direct
LISTEN to the frontend through PQcmdStatus(), but it doesn't say
anything about what happens in functions and such. And similar for
transactions, I guess.

> Again, it's not all that easy to be sure if you're inside a transaction
> or not. We looked at this and decided it was impractical to do without
> a protocol addition.

I don't think I followed that discussion to its conclusion at the time,
but it left me with the impression that such an addition was being
considered.

However I just took a look at the docs for readline and apparently it
was designed with select() in mind. So it should be possible to
implement this without any cost to scalability: the server doesn't
care if the frontend is listening when it sends out the notification,
and the frontend can sleep until either a notification or a keypress
arrives.

Or am I missing something basic here?

Jeroen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Spraul 2003-02-24 18:24:09 performance: use pread instead of lseek+read
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-24 17:36:56 Re: psql patch