From: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional |
Date: | 2016-02-06 13:35:40 |
Message-ID: | CADxJZo16qGNKhROpM-7hg6xgxNMarh2kBW=2suOCv+5EbPUfsw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 at 12:50 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I agree with what Merlin said about this:
> >
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHyXU0yoHe8Qc=yC10AHU1nFiA1tbHsg+35Ds-oEueUapo7t4g@mail.gmail.com
>
> Yeah, I agree that a GUC for this is quite unappetizing.
>
How would you feel about a variant for calling NOTIFY?
The SQL syntax could be something like "NOTIFY [ALL] channel, payload"
where the ALL means "just send the notification already, nobody cares
whether there's an identical one in the queue".
Likewise we could introduce a three-argument form of pg_notify(text, text,
bool) where the final argument is whether you are interested in removing
duplicates.
Optimising the remove-duplicates path is still probably a worthwhile
endeavour, but if the user really doesn't care at all about duplication, it
seems silly to force them to pay any performance price for a behaviour they
didn't want, no?
Cheers,
BJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-02-06 16:43:48 | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-06 13:03:15 | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |