On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
I found some messages in 03/2002 that also brought up the performance
issue. You had suggested the use of shared-memory, and made reference
to a "SI model". I did find see any alternative non-table-based
suggestions. What is the "SI model"?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-04-29 19:49:46|
|Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-04-29 19:36:34|
|Subject: Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL CVS build issues |