| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Lætitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Statistics updates is delayed when using `commit and chain` |
| Date: | 2021-07-14 04:06:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZSi6vWEUtZKQhqzHj8FeWtgon=HJ-BGLfpRwjErpwKGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 9:02 PM David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We are already doing that now, though I argue we are in fact documenting
> the "other clients receive the notification as soon as committed -
> regardless of chaining" situation (the additional restrictions on receiving
> are then what cause the chain authoring client to wait).
>
>
Specifically:
Firstly, if a NOTIFY is executed inside a transaction, the notify events
are not delivered until and unless the transaction is committed.
vs.
So notification events are only delivered between transactions.
I'll accept that "and-chain" means there is no "between transactions"
period. But there is no qualification to "until the transaction is
committed".
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2021-07-14 05:52:39 | Re: printf %s with NULL pointer (was Re: BUG #17098: Assert failed on composing an error message when adding a type to an extension being dropped) |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-07-14 04:02:53 | Re: Statistics updates is delayed when using `commit and chain` |