| From: | Alex <alex323(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Chernow <andrew(at)esilo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Listen / Notify rewrite |
| Date: | 2009-11-15 16:20:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20091115112022.782f8b86@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:22:32 -0500
Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > However I share Greg's concerns that people are trying to use NOTIFY
> > as a message queue which it is not designed to be.
>
> When you have an established libpq connection waiting for notifies it
> is not unreasonable to expect/desire a payload. ISTM, the problem is
> that the initial design was half-baked. NOTIFY is event-driven, ie.
> no polling!
>
I agree. Wouldn't it make sense to allow the user to pass libpq a
callback function which is executed when NOTIFY events happen? Currently
we are forced to poll the connection, which means that we'll be checking
for a NOTIFY every time we have new data.
That just doesn't make sense.
--
Alex
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-15 16:21:57 | Re: patch - Report the schema along table name in a referential failure error message |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-15 16:18:14 | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |