Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From prashanth@jibenetworks.com
Subject Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?
Date
Msg-id 20030429194624.GA3037@prashanth.jibenetworks.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> prashanth@jibenetworks.com writes:
> > I'm not an expert on signals, not even a novice, so I might be totally
> > off base, but it seems like the Async Notification implementation does
> > not scale.
> 
> Very possibly.  You didn't even mention the problems that would occur if
> the pg_listener table didn't get vacuumed often enough.
> 
> The pghackers archives contain some discussion about reimplementing
> listen/notify using a non-table-based infrastructure.  But AFAIK no one
> has picked up that task yet.

I found some messages in 03/2002 that also brought up the performance
issue.  You had suggested the use of shared-memory, and made reference
to a "SI model".  I did find see any alternative non-table-based
suggestions.  What is the "SI model"? 

Thanks,

--prashanth



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: FOR EACH STATEMENT triggers
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL CVS build issues