From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY |
Date: | 2005-10-06 05:32:32 |
Message-ID: | 1128576752.9140.56.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2005-06-10 at 01:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The idea of blocking during commit until shmem becomes available might
> work. There's some issues here about transaction atomicity, though:
> how do you guarantee that all or none of your notifies get sent?
> (Actually, supposing that the notifies ought to be sent post-commit,
> "all" is the only acceptable answer. So maybe you just never give up.)
Yeah, I think that would work. We could also write to shared memory
before the commit proper, and embed an XID in the message to allow other
backends to determine when/if to fire the notification.
However, I don't really like the idea of blocking the backend for a
potentially significant amount of time in a state half-way between
"committed" and "ready for the next query".
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2005-10-06 06:16:10 | Re: Slony RPM issue |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-06 05:14:56 | Re: fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY |