Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)
Date
Msg-id 18351.1025635817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I don't see a huge value to using shared memory.   Once we get
> auto-vacuum, pg_listener will be fine,

No it won't.  The performance of notify is *always* going to suck
as long as it depends on going through a table.  This is particularly
true given the lack of any effective way to index pg_listener; the
more notifications you feed through, the more dead rows there are
with the same key...

> and shared memory like SI is just
> too hard to get working reliabily because of all the backends
> reading/writing in there.

A curious statement considering that PG depends critically on SI
working.  This is a solved problem.
        regards, tom lane




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)