| From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Notify enhancement |
| Date: | 2006-12-04 16:40:42 |
| Message-ID: | 45744F8A.1020200@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> How about Alvaro's suggestion of spilling to disk?
>
> Won't that reintroduce most of the problems we're hoping to get rid of
> by removing the pg_listener table? Certainly I'd not recommend putting
> that into the first iteration.
At least for my usecases, a blocking "notify" would be a serious
problem. It basically means that one broken that stops calling
"listen ..." for whatever reason can cause all other clients to
stop..
With the current implementation, things just gradually slow down,
giving me time to react. So at least for me, blocking listen/notify
would be a regression...
Just my 0.02 eurocents, greetings
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-04 16:44:27 | Re: Notify enhancement |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2006-12-04 15:32:50 | Re: Facing a problem with SPI |