Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?

From: prashanth(at)jibenetworks(dot)com
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?
Date: 2003-04-29 19:46:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> prashanth(at)jibenetworks(dot)com writes:
> > I'm not an expert on signals, not even a novice, so I might be totally
> > off base, but it seems like the Async Notification implementation does
> > not scale.
> Very possibly.  You didn't even mention the problems that would occur if
> the pg_listener table didn't get vacuumed often enough.
> The pghackers archives contain some discussion about reimplementing
> listen/notify using a non-table-based infrastructure.  But AFAIK no one
> has picked up that task yet.

I found some messages in 03/2002 that also brought up the performance
issue.  You had suggested the use of shared-memory, and made reference
to a "SI model".  I did find see any alternative non-table-based
suggestions.  What is the "SI model"? 



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-29 19:49:46
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-29 19:36:34
Subject: Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL CVS build issues

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group