Re: Listen / Notify rewrite

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Chernow <andrew(at)esilo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Listen / Notify rewrite
Date: 2009-11-13 01:44:51
Message-ID: 4AFCBA13.9050709@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/12/09 8:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So while a payload string for NOTIFY has been on the to-do list since
> forever, I have to think that Greg's got a good point questioning
> whether it is actually a good idea.

Sure, people will abuse it as a queue. But people abuse arrays when
they should be using child tables, use composite types to make data
non-atomic, and use dblink when they really should be using schema.
Does the potential for misuse mean that we should drop the features? No.

Payloads are also quite useful even in a lossy environment, where you
understand that LISTEN is not a queue. For example, I'd like to be
using LISTEN/NOTIFY for cache invalidation for some applications; if it
misses a few, or double-counts them, it's not an issue. However, I'd
like to be able to send message like players_updated|45321 where 45321
is the ID of the player updated.

--Josh Berkus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-11-13 01:46:13 Re: Patch committers
Previous Message James Pye 2009-11-13 01:42:29 Re: Python 3.1 support