Re: pgmemcache

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
Cc: "Christian Storm" <christian(dot)storm(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgmemcache
Date: 2006-04-14 00:43:54
Message-ID: 2847.1144975434@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> writes:
> I guess AFTER COMMIT triggers would be like a NOTIFY, but more powerful.

I'll let you in on a secret: NOTIFY is actually a before-commit
operation. This is good enough because it never, or hardly ever,
fails. I would argue that anything you want to do in an AFTER COMMIT
trigger could just as well be done in a BEFORE COMMIT trigger; if that's
not reliable enough then you need to fix your trigger.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message patrick keshishian 2006-04-14 01:26:00 Re: pg 7.4.x - pg_restore impossibly slow
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-04-14 00:36:09 Re: Blocks read for index scans