| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY |
| Date: | 2005-10-10 01:21:08 |
| Message-ID: | 10092.1128907268@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane said:
>> I'm inclined to preserve that behavior,
>> primarily because not doing so would create a tremendous penalty on
>> applications that expect it to work that way.
> What sort of application are you envisioning?
The ones that have a per-row trigger that does "NOTIFY foo". In the
past this would deliver one event per transaction; changing that to one
per row is going to kill them.
I'm not very concerned about whether similar events issued by different
transactions are merged or not --- as you say, one could never rely on
that to happen anyway because of timing. But one event per transaction
has been a reliable behavior and I think it would be bad to change it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-10-10 11:43:58 | Re: LDAP Authentication? |
| Previous Message | Marc Munro | 2005-10-10 00:00:34 | Re: User-assigned LWLocks (was Re: Announcing Veil) |