Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY and notification timing guarantees

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY and notification timing guarantees
Date: 2010-02-16 12:31:08
Message-ID: 4B7A3BAC020000250002F304@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> We could adopt the historical policy of sending self-notifies
> pre-commit, but that doesn't seem tremendously appetizing from the
> standpoint of transactional integrity.

But one traditional aspect of transactional integrity is that a
transaction always sees *its own* uncommitted work. Wouldn't the
historical policy of PostgreSQL self-notifies be consistent with
that?

-Kevin

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2010-02-16 12:40:11 Re: Streaming replication on win32, still broken
Previous Message Dave Page 2010-02-16 12:14:55 MIT Kerberos support in Windows builds