Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <list-pgsql-hackers(at)empires(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)
Date: 2002-07-03 06:20:14
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOGEOKCCAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Of course, a shared memory system probably is going to either do it
> sequentailly or have its own index issues, so I don't see a huge
> advantage to going to shared memory, and I do see extra code and a queue
> limit.

Is a shared memory implementation going to play silly buggers with the Win32
port?

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-07-03 06:25:46 libpq++ build problems
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-07-03 06:08:29 Re: Integrating libpqxx