RE: NOTIFY and pg_notify performance when deduplicating notifications

From: <julien(at)jdemoor(dot)com>
To: "'Catalin Iacob'" <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "'Pg Hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: NOTIFY and pg_notify performance when deduplicating notifications
Date: 2018-10-09 12:17:08
Message-ID: 028301d45fca$020595e0$0610c1a0$@jdemoor.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Indeed, I have the same and am very interested in this.
>
> > I hope this patch can be reviewed and included in PostgreSQL.
>
> I added this to the next Commitfest and added myself as a reviewer.
> Will try to a review beginning of next week.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/20/1820/

Thank you for reviewing.

I just caught an error in my patch, it's fixed in the attachment. The 'never' and 'maybe' collapse modes were mixed up in one location.

I can't find a reasonable way to build a regression test that checks whether notifications are effectively deduplicated. The output of the LISTEN command lists the PID of the notifying backend for each notification, e.g. : 'Asynchronous notification "foobar" received from server process with PID 24917'. I can't just add this to async.out. I did test manually for all eight combinations : four collapse mode values (missing, empty string, 'maybe' and 'never'), both with NOTIFY and pg_notify().

Attachment Content-Type Size
postgres-notify-all-v7.patch application/octet-stream 14.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-10-09 12:54:12 Re: Refactor textToQualifiedNameList()
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-10-09 11:25:46 Re: partition tree inspection functions