| From: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_listening_channels() |
| Date: | 2012-11-30 19:33:17 |
| Message-ID: | A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70EC08F06E01@mail.corp.perceptron.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Sabino Mullane [mailto:greg(at)turnstep(dot)com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:34 PM
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: pg_listening_channels()
>
>
> On the contrary, it was very well discussed and designed. Why do you
> even care if the anyone is listening or not? Simply remove the "check
> if anyone listens" step and send the NOTIFY.
>
Well, I guess we disagree on this.
Why trashing the system with NOTIFYs no one listens to?
Of course, like Tom Lane suggested, I could create a table similar to now obsolete pg_listener and manage it from the client that LISTENs and gets notifications.
Also, what sense pg_listening_channels() function makes, if it returns channels that I created (in my current session/connection)?
I don't need this function to know whether I issued LISTEN my_channel or not.
Regards,
Igor Neyman
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Henry Drexler | 2012-11-30 20:22:45 | Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-11-30 18:42:47 | Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size? |