| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, jacques klein <jacques(dot)klei(at)googlemail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NOTIFY in Background Worker |
| Date: | 2015-11-03 08:35:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20151103083537.GP11897@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-11-03 17:19:43 +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Thomas Munro
> > <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > This made me wonder what happens if a background worker calls LISTEN.
> > NotifyMyFrontEnd simply logs the notifications, since there is no remote
> > libpq to sent a message to. Perhaps a way of delivering to background
> > workers could be developed, though of course there are plenty of other kinds
> > of IPC available already.
>
> With this commit - bde39eed0cafb82bc94c40e95d96b5cf47b6f719, it is not possible
> to execute Notify commands inside a parallel worker. Can't we change
> it as disable both listen and notify commands inside a background worker?
Well, parallel workers are something different from general background
workers. I don't see why it'd make sense to allow listen/notify there,
given the rest of the restrictions?
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-11-03 08:38:42 | Re: [ADMIN] Replication slots and isolation levels |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-11-03 07:12:57 | Re: Patent warning about the Greenplum source code |