Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 13:51:29
Message-ID: 24160.1025704289@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Are you planning to have one circular buffer per listening backend ?

No; one circular buffer, period.

Each backend would also internally buffer notifies that it hadn't yet
delivered to its client --- but since the time until delivery could vary
drastically across clients, I think that's reasonable. I'd expect
clients that are using LISTEN to avoid doing long-running transactions,
so under normal circumstances the internal buffer should not grow very
large.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-07-03 14:30:49 Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-07-03 13:48:08 Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)