| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Listen / Notify - what to do when the queue is full |
| Date: | 2010-01-20 22:40:26 |
| Message-ID: | 21989.1264027226@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 15:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes. That is the case with the existing implementation as well, no?
>> We don't consider sending notifies until transaction end, so anything
>> that commits during the xact in which you UNLISTEN will get dropped.
> Only if the transaction containing UNLISTEN commits. Are you saying it
> would also be OK to drop NOTIFYs if a backend's UNLISTEN transaction
> aborts?
No, I would say not, but that wasn't being proposed was it? The
decisions about what to do are only made at/after commit.
> Thinking out loud: If we're taking this approach, I wonder if it might
> be a good idea to PreventTransactionChain for LISTEN and UNLISTEN?
That shouldn't be necessary IMO. There's never been such a restriction
before.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-01-20 23:04:20 | HS/SR and smart shutdown |
| Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2010-01-20 22:39:01 | Re: Listen / Notify - what to do when the queue is full |