Re: notification: pg_notify ?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: notification: pg_notify ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9345.1018381375@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: notification: pg_notify ? (Mikhail Terekhov <terekhov@emc.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: notification: pg_notify ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Mikhail Terekhov <terekhov@emc.com> writes: > Please correct me if I'm wrong but the buffer overrun problem in the new > LISTEN/NOTOFY mechanism means that it is perfectly possible that sending > backend may drop all or some of the pending NOTIFY messages in case of such > an overrun. You would be guaranteed to get *some* notify. You wouldn't be guaranteed to receive the auxiliary info that's proposed to be added to the basic message type; also you might get notify reports for conditions that hadn't actually been signaled. > If this is the case then this new mechanism would be step > backward in terms of functionality relative to the current implementation. The current mechanism is hardly perfect; it drops multiple occurrences of the same NOTIFY. Yes, the behavior would be different, but that doesn't immediately translate to "a step backwards". > That is exactly what I do in my application. I store messages in a regular > table and then send a notify to other clients. But I'd like to have a > guaranty that without system crash all my notifies will be delivered. Please re-read the proposal. It will not break your application. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: