Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
| От | Heikki Linnakangas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 47D6A360.4040400@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> 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. Oh, I see. Yes, that's true. >> 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. Yep. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: