| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, joel(at)compiler(dot)org, arseniy(dot)mukhin(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [PG19] A canceled notify read leaves the NOTIFY queue stuck |
| Date: | 2026-10-22 16:34:35 |
| Message-ID: | 2476318.1792686875@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Playing around with this example, it avoids the queue-filling problem,
> but there's still an undesirable aspect: the N process has sent the L
> process a NOTIFY, but the L process does not see that, at least not
> till another NOTIFY is sent (and then it reports both at once).
> That's because the L process already cleared notifyInterruptPending,
> so it won't re-enter ProcessIncomingNotify. This is measurably worse
> than pre-v19: before, L would get the notify message when it next did
> something, even without another NOTIFY. (I'm not immediately sure
> why that changed.)
Oh, I must have fat-fingered the test case somehow, because when
I try this again, v18 behaves like HEAD. So never mind that bit.
I'm still interested in whether we can avoid blocking on a safe
snapshot, but that's clearly material for future development.
So we can close this open item for v19.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shihao zhong | 2026-10-22 16:40:22 | Re: [PG19] A canceled notify read leaves the NOTIFY queue stuck |
| Previous Message | Greg Burd | 2026-10-22 16:29:37 | Re: Trying out <stdatomic.h> |