Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
>
>> ... I think the transaction overhead, and
>> attempts to re-use PostgreSQL tables to implement LISTEN/NOTIFY to be
>> clever but mis-guided.
>>
>
> Oh, I don't disagree with you. As I already mentioned, they desperately
> need to be rewritten. However, given that that's not a sanely
> back-patchable answer, we have to consider what are the appropriate
> semantics for the existing infrastructure.
>
> (Also, if they *were* memory-based then the question of their relation
> to 2PC semantics becomes even more urgent.)
>

Ah k - so count my vote as "I don't think LISTEN should be impacted by
what sort of COMMIT I use, but I don't believe I'll be using LISTEN as
it is today, and I definately won't be using it in two-phase commit
today." For me that is "it should be usable in a two-phase commit - but
it's not usable today." Sorry this isn't a clear answer to your question.

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>