| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LISTEN and "tuple concurrently updated" |
| Date: | 2003-09-16 00:26:32 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0309161022400.14143@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > A user on IRC came across the following "tuple concurrently updated" error
> > when using LISTEN/NOTIFY intensively.
>
> I've applied a fix for this to CVS tip.
Great.
> I think that whenever we get around to rewriting LISTEN/NOTIFY to use
> shared memory messages instead of a table, it will be necessary to apply
> listen/unlisten commands that way (hold them until commit) to preserve
> transactional semantics. But for now, I'm not going to do the extra
> work.
I wasn't thinking about the deadlock/performance problems when I sent in
that patch. It was more a proof of my theory. I was certainly thinking
about the various discussions about reworking LISTEN/NOTIFY into
shared memory when looking at the code, but as you say, its not a job for
right now :-).
Thanks,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-16 01:49:49 | Re: FreeBSD Thread-safe functions ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-15 23:46:29 | Re: LISTEN and "tuple concurrently updated" |