Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?

From: prashanth(at)jibenetworks(dot)com
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?
Date: 2003-04-29 19:46:24
Message-ID: 20030429194624.GA3037@prashanth.jibenetworks.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


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"?

Thanks,

--prashanth

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-29 19:49:46 Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-04-29 19:36:34 Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL CVS build issues