Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20564.1205248643@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit ("Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>> To be honest, I didn't realize the receiver gets to know the PID of the >>> sending process, but clearly it does. It seems mostly indifferent to me; >>> it's not guaranteed that the PID is valid by the time the client >>> application sees it anyway. >> >> Well, with the current definition it is; but that seems like a point >> against trying to send the original PID. > There's a small window between backend A committing and sending a > NOTIFY, and the time client B receives the notification from backend B > through the connection and reacts to it. Sorry, I was unclear: the case that's of interest is telling self-notifies apart from others. For this purpose, your own backend's PID *is* sufficiently stable, because you're still connected to it when the notify is sent to you. > This is all very hand-wavy of course, as we don't know of any real > application that uses LISTEN/NOTIFY with 2PC... Yeah. I'm inclined to leave that alone (but document it) until/unless someone complains. Without a real use-case to look at, it's a bit hard to be sure what's a useful behavior. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: