From: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_listening_channels() |
Date: | 2012-11-29 19:04:38 |
Message-ID: | A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70EC08F068FE@mail.corp.perceptron.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:13 PM
> To: Igor Neyman
> Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_listening_channels()
>
> Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> writes:
> > With PG 9.0 changes I lost ability to check if anyone is interested
> in the NOTIFY signal and payload I'm about to send.
> > Seems like this change was not thought through completely.
>
> [ shrug... ] It was debated extensively and the advantages of the new
> implementation were deemed to outweigh the disadvantages.
>
> regards, tom lane
Tom,
Are you saying that these two features: attached payload and being able to find which channels are being listened to - are incompatible? That they cannot coexist?
Regards,
Igor Neyman
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2012-11-29 19:05:25 | Re: youtube video on pgsql integrity |
Previous Message | Mike Christensen | 2012-11-29 18:34:56 | Re: When does CLUSTER occur? |