From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sending notifications from the master to the standby |
Date: | 2012-01-11 03:02:43 |
Message-ID: | 6064.1326250963@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> Suggest we add something to initial handshake from standby to say
>>> "please send me notify traffic",
>> +1 on that.
> From what you said I imagined this walsender listener as a regular
> listener that listens on the union of all sets of channels that
> anybody is listening on on the standby, with the LISTEN transaction on
> the standby return from commit once the listener is known to have been
> set up on the master.
This seems vastly overcomplicated too. I'd just vote for a simple
yes/no flag, so that receivers that have no interest in notifies don't
have to deal with them.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-11 04:33:38 | Re: Sending notifications from the master to the standby |
Previous Message | Stefan Keller | 2012-01-11 02:16:07 | Re: Real-life range datasets |