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: | 20030429194624.GA3037@prashanth.jibenetworks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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"?
Thanks,
--prashanth
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-29 19:49:46 | Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-29 19:36:34 | Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL CVS build issues |