| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
| 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 15:51:06 |
| Message-ID: | 25212.1025711466@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) writes:
> How would this interact with the current transactional behavior of
> NOTIFY?
No change. Senders would only insert notify messages into the shared
buffer when they commit (uncommited notifies would live in a list in
the sender, same as now). Readers would be expected to remove messages
from the shared buffer ASAP after receiving the signal, but they'd
store those messages internally and not forward them to the client until
such time as they're not inside a transaction block.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-07-03 16:09:34 | Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-03 15:48:02 | Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited) |