Re: notification: pg_notify ?

Mikhail Terekhov <terekhov(at)emc(dot)com> writes:
> Why do you think so? Even if you are right and original design was
> just for invalidate-your-cache arrangements, current implementation
> has much more functionality and can be used as a reliable message
> transmission mechanism (we use it that way).

It is *not* reliable, at least not in the sense of "the message is
guaranteed to be delivered even if there's a system crash". Which is
the normal meaning of "reliable" in SQL environments. If you want that
level of reliability, you need to pass your messages by storing them
in a regular table.

LISTEN/NOTIFY can optimize your message passing by avoiding unnecessary
polling of the table in the normal no-crash case. But they are not a
substitute for having a table, and I don't see a reason to bog them down
with an intermediate level of reliability that isn't buying anything.

regards, tom lane