Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> ... But ISTM that means we just need to pick a few strategic spots
>> that will call CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS() even in the middle of a
>> transaction and store them locally.
>>
>
> Minor comment --- I don't believe in having a separate "sprinkle" of
> notify-specific checks. It needs to be set up so that
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS will deal with the catch-up-please signal. We've
> already done (most of) the work of making sure CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is
> called often enough, and AFAICS we'd end up needing
> CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS in exactly those same loops anyway.
>
>
>
OK, this works for me - it will make things simpler.
cheers
andrew
