| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Julien Demoor <julien(at)jdemoor(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Subject: | Re: NOTIFY and pg_notify performance when deduplicating notifications | 
| Date: | 2019-02-03 09:39:13 | 
| Message-ID: | 20190203093913.gfcs4hucm5dhazqy@alap3.anarazel.de | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi,
On 2019-01-10 15:56:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Demoor <julien(at)jdemoor(dot)com> writes:
> > [ postgres-notify-all-v8.patch ]
> 
> I took a quick look through this.  A few comments:
> 
> * I find the proposed syntax extension for NOTIFY to be fairly bizarre;
> it's unlike the way that we handle options for any other utility
> statement.  It's also non-orthogonal, since you can't specify a collapse
> mode without giving a payload string.  I think possibly a better answer
> is the way that we've been adding optional parameters to VACUUM and
> suchlike recently:
> 
> 	 NOTIFY [ (collapse = off/on) ] channel [ , payload ]
> 
> This'd be more extensible if we ever find a need for other options,
> too.
> 
> * I'm also unimpressed with the idea of having a "maybe" collapse mode.
> What's that supposed to do?  It doesn't appear to be different from
> "always", so why not just reduce this to a boolean collapse-or-not
> flag?
> 
> * The documentation doesn't agree with the code, since it fails to
> mention "always" mode.
> 
> * I was kind of disappointed to find that the patch doesn't really
> do anything to fix the performance problem for duplicate notifies.
> The thread title had led me to hope for more ;-).  I wonder if we
> couldn't do something involving hashing.  OTOH, it's certainly
> arguable that that would be an independent patch, and that this
> one should be seen as a feature patch ("make NOTIFY's behavior
> for duplicate notifies more flexible and more clearly specified")
> rather than a performance patch.
Given there's been no movement since this review, I'm marking this patch
as returned with feedback. Please resubmit once updated.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-03 10:04:51 | Re: Implement predicate propagation for non-equivalence clauses | 
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-03 09:25:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend |