Re: LISTEN / NOTIFY performance in 8.3

James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> writes:
> I certainly hadn't expected that to be the implementation technique -
> isn't it smply that we need
> a sngle flag per worker process and can set/test-and-clear with atomic
> operations and then a
> signal to wake them up?

Hardly --- how's that going to pass a notify name? Also, a lot of
people want some payload data in a notify, not just a condition name;
any reimplementation that doesn't address that desire probably won't
get accepted.

There's lots of threads in the -hackers archives about reimplementing
listen/notify in a saner fashion. Personally I lean towards using
something much like the sinval queue.

regards, tom lane