Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

From: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
Date: 2008-03-11 15:21:04
Message-ID: 47D6A360.4040400@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> There's a small window between backend A committing and sending a
>> NOTIFY, and the time client B receives the notification from backend B
>> through the connection and reacts to it.
>
> Sorry, I was unclear: the case that's of interest is telling
> self-notifies apart from others. For this purpose, your own backend's
> PID *is* sufficiently stable, because you're still connected to it
> when the notify is sent to you.

Oh, I see. Yes, that's true.

>> This is all very hand-wavy of course, as we don't know of any real
>> application that uses LISTEN/NOTIFY with 2PC...
>
> Yeah. I'm inclined to leave that alone (but document it) until/unless
> someone complains. Without a real use-case to look at, it's a bit hard
> to be sure what's a useful behavior.

Yep.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2008-03-11 15:40:05 Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-03-11 15:17:23 Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit