| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <list-pgsql-hackers(at)empires(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited) |
| Date: | 2002-07-04 04:13:47 |
| Message-ID: | 29669.1025756027@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
>> Right. But we play similar games already with the existing SI buffer,
>> to wit:
> It means a full seq scan over pointers ;)
I have not seen any indication that the corresponding scan in the SI
code is a bottleneck --- and that has to scan over *all* backends,
without even the opportunity to skip those that aren't LISTENing.
> OK. Now, how will we introduce transactional behaviour to this scheme ?
It's no different from before --- notify messages don't get into the
buffer at all, until they're committed. See my earlier response to Neil.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-04 04:23:17 | Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-04 04:08:17 | Re: regress/results directory problem |