Re: notification payloads

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: notification payloads
Date: 2007-03-27 13:54:54
Message-ID: 19269.1175003694@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> hel kenal peval, T, 2007-03-27 kell 07:11, kirjutas Andrew Dunstan:
>> Er, what listen table?

> At least the list of which backends listen to which events should be
> also in shared mem.

No, the intent is specifically that there will be *no* such global
structure. All it does is add complexity, not to mention make it
harder to size shared memory.

> How else would we know how many copies to make for each backend or when
> we can release the memory in case we make one copy ?

The proposed design is essentially a clone of the sinval messaging
system, which does not need to know either of those and does not make
"one copy per backend". There's one copy, period.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-03-27 13:56:04 Re: patch adding new regexp functions
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2007-03-27 13:44:57 Re: Guarenteeing complex referencial integrity through custom triggers