| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sending notifications from the master to the standby |
| Date: | 2012-01-12 17:51:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4F0F1D8E.2030009@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Many people clearly do think this is useful.
It also comes under the heading of "avoiding surprising behavior". That
is, users instinctively expect to be able to LISTEN on standbys, and are
surprised when they can't.
> I personally don't think it will be that complex. I'm willing to
> review and maintain it if the patch works the way we want it to.
>
I think we need some performance testing for the review for it to be valid.
1) How does this patch affect the speed and throughput of LISTEN/NOTIFY
on a standalone server?
2) Can we actually attach more LISTENers to multiple standbys than we
could to a single Master?
Unfortunately, I don't have an application which can LISTEN in a way
which doesn't eclipse any differences in througput or response time we
would see on the DB side. Does anyone?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2012-01-12 18:28:18 | create index regression fail |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-12 17:32:15 | Re: pgbench post-connection command |