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

Re: notification payloads

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(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: 2007-04-03 18:14:24
Message-ID: 46129980.6040800@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> We'll also need to store the database id along with the event name and 
>> message, since pg_listener is per db rather than per cluster.
> 
> Well, that's an artifact of the historical implementation ... does
> anyone want to argue that LISTEN should be cluster-wide given the
> opportunity?

That would be a problem if you try to run multiple installations of an 
application that uses NOTIFY/LISTEN in separate databases in a single 
cluster. Applications would overhear each other. I'd consider that as a 
bug, not a feature.


-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-03 18:15:52
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-03 17:45:42
Subject: Re: notification payloads

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