Re: PATCH: To fix the issue where message panel was showing incomplete info (pgAdmin4)

Hi Dave,

PFA patch with incremental messages.
RM#1523

Regards,
Murtuza

--
Regards,
Murtuza Zabuawala
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Ashesh Vashi <
> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Ashesh Vashi <
>>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Ashesh Vashi <
>>>>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Murtuza Zabuawala
>>>>>>> <murtuza(dot)zabuawala(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > PFA patch to fix the issue where message panel was showing
>>>>>>> incomplete info.
>>>>>>> > We may still miss some messages from Psycopg2 driver due to
>>>>>>> limited size of
>>>>>>> > notices queue.
>>>>>>> > (RM#1523)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A few thoughts on this (mostly based on my discussions with Ashesh):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) You seem to have removed the poll delay. I assume that is to try
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> avoid missing messages? Can we re-introduce the delay (to avoid
>>>>>>> excessive network requests), but collect messages while we're
>>>>>>> waiting?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using thread?
>>>>>> Start a thread during the timeout?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily. If we want a 2 second polling delay, we could just
>>>>> sleep for 0.5 secs, collect messages, sleep for 0.5 sec, collect messages,
>>>>> <repeat...> return to client.
>>>>>
>>>> That's a very huge delay in practical.
>>>> We were hardly waiting for during poll (that was in milliseconds), but
>>>> - still we were loosing a lot of the messages. (a lot more from the current
>>>> implementation).
>>>>
>>>
>>> What was the original delay? Now there appears to be none at all.
>>>
>> That was 10 milliseconds
>>
>
> Hmm, Ok - for some reason I thought it was much longer. Ignore that point
> then :-)
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>