Re: NOTIFY/LISTEN on read-only slave?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: NOTIFY/LISTEN on read-only slave?
Date: 2010-02-18 03:06:46
Message-ID: 201002180306.o1I36kd24077@momjian.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Smith wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >
> >> Our documentation says listen/notify will return an error if executed on
> >> the hot standby server:
> >>
> >> o LISTEN, UNLISTEN, NOTIFY since they currently write to system tables
> >>
> >> With the listen/notify system now implemented in memory, is this still
> >> true?
> >>
> >
> > The explanation is wrong, but it's still disallowed.
> >
>
> What's the actual reason for the restriction then? I did a whole
> proofreading round on the HS documentation the other day and am working
> on a patch to clean up everything I found, can add better notes about
> this to it.

Oops, I did cleanup on the HS docs all day today in response to a doc
patch that was posted in December. How extensive are your changes?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-02-18 03:07:18 Re: NOTIFY/LISTEN on read-only slave?
Previous Message Greg Smith 2010-02-18 03:05:08 Re: NOTIFY/LISTEN on read-only slave?