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

On Tuesday 02 July 2002 06:03 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Let me tell you what would be really interesting.  If we didn't report
> the pid of the notifying process and we didn't allow arbitrary strings
> for notify (just pg_class relation names), we could just add a counter
> to pg_class that is updated for every notify.  If a backend is
> listening, it remembers the counter at listen time, and on every commit
> checks the pg_class counter to see if it has incremented.  That way,
> there is no queue, no shared memory, and there is no scanning. You just
> pull up the cache entry for pg_class and look at the counter.
>
> One problem is that pg_class would be updated more frequently.  Anyway,
> just an idea.

I think that currently a lot of people use select() (after all, it's mentioned 
in the docs) in the frontend to determine when a notify comes into a 
listening backend. If the backend only checks on commit, and the backend is 
largely idle except for notify processing, might it be a while before the 
frontend realizes that a notify was sent?

Regards,Jeff



>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > Is disk i/o a real performance
> > > penalty for notify, and is performance a huge issue for notify anyway,
> >
> > Yes, and yes.  I have used NOTIFY in production applications, and I know
> > that performance is an issue.
> >
> > >> The queue limit problem is a valid argument, but it's the only valid
> > >> complaint IMHO; and it seems a reasonable tradeoff to make for the
> > >> other advantages.
> >
> > BTW, it occurs to me that as long as we make this an independent message
> > buffer used only for NOTIFY (and *not* try to merge it with SI), we
> > don't have to put up with overrun-reset behavior.  The overrun reset
> > approach is useful for SI because there are only limited times when
> > we are prepared to handle SI notification in the backend work cycle.
> > However, I think a self-contained NOTIFY mechanism could be much more
> > flexible about when it will remove messages from the shared buffer.
> > Consider this:
> >
> > 1. To send NOTIFY: grab write lock on shared-memory circular buffer.
> > If enough space, insert message, release lock, send signal, done.
> > If not enough space, release lock, send signal, sleep some small
> > amount of time, and then try again.  (Hard failure would occur only
> > if the proposed message size exceeds the buffer size; as long as we
> > make the buffer size a parameter, this is the DBA's fault not ours.)
> >
> > 2. On receipt of signal: grab read lock on shared-memory circular
> > buffer, copy all data up to write pointer into private memory,
> > advance my (per-process) read pointer, release lock.  This would be
> > safe to do pretty much anywhere we're allowed to malloc more space,
> > so it could be done say at the same points where we check for cancel
> > interrupts.  Therefore, the expected time before the shared buffer
> > is emptied after a signal is pretty small.
> >
> > In this design, if someone sits in a transaction for a long time,
> > there is no risk of shared memory overflow; that backend's private
> > memory for not-yet-reported NOTIFYs could grow large, but that's
> > his problem.  (We could avoid unnecessary growth by not storing
> > messages that don't correspond to active LISTENs for that backend.
> > Indeed, a backend with no active LISTENs could be left out of the
> > circular buffer participation list altogether.)
> >
> > We'd need to separate this processing from the processing that's used to
> > force SI queue reading (dz's old patch), so we'd need one more signal
> > code than we use now.  But we do have SIGUSR1 available.
> >
> >             regards, tom lane