Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: prashanth(at)jibenetworks(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?
Date: 2003-04-29 02:19:16
Message-ID: 11548.1051582756@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
prashanth(at)jibenetworks(dot)com writes:
> I'm not an expert on signals, not even a novice, so I might be totally
> off base, but it seems like the Async Notification implementation does
> not scale.

Very possibly.  You didn't even mention the problems that would occur if
the pg_listener table didn't get vacuumed often enough.

The pghackers archives contain some discussion about reimplementing
listen/notify using a non-table-based infrastructure.  But AFAIK no one
has picked up that task yet.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-04-29 03:06:22
Subject: Re: How about an am_superuser GUC parameter (non-settable)?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-29 02:06:06
Subject: Re: How about an am_superuser GUC parameter (non-settable)?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group