Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
Date: 2008-03-11 01:58:22
Message-ID: 6118.1205200702@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Mielke 2008-03-11 02:05:09 Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
Previous Message Mark Mielke 2008-03-11 01:54:15 Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit