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
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 |