| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: notification payloads |
| Date: | 2007-03-27 11:06:30 |
| Message-ID: | 4608FAB6.7040407@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> ... But ISTM that means we just need to pick a few strategic spots
>> that will call CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS() even in the middle of a
>> transaction and store them locally.
>>
>
> Minor comment --- I don't believe in having a separate "sprinkle" of
> notify-specific checks. It needs to be set up so that
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS will deal with the catch-up-please signal. We've
> already done (most of) the work of making sure CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is
> called often enough, and AFAICS we'd end up needing
> CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS in exactly those same loops anyway.
>
>
>
OK, this works for me - it will make things simpler.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-03-27 11:11:03 | Re: notification payloads |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-27 10:41:17 | sorted results on pgbuildfarm |