| From: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, jacques klein <jacques(dot)klei(at)googlemail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NOTIFY in Background Worker |
| Date: | 2015-11-05 23:08:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAJrrPGfMigtNmU9m=6sWby4FBdgkG9jHwSyU21RZcPvW=j2k6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I marked this patch as ready for committer.
>
> The patch says:
>
> If a background worker registers to receive asynchronous notifications
> with the <command>LISTEN</command> through <acronym>SPI</acronym>,
> there is currently no way for incoming notifications to be received.
>
> But wouldn't it be more correct to say:
>
> If a background worker registers to receive asynchronous notifications
> with the <command>LISTEN</command> through <acronym>SPI</acronym>, the
> worker will log those notifications, but there is no programmatic way
> for the worker to intercept and respond to those notifications.
Yes, the above description is good.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-11-05 23:21:31 | Re: Brain fade in gin_extract_jsonb_path() |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-11-05 22:44:24 | Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel |