Re: Workqueue performance - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Workqueue performance
Date
Msg-id 5161.1274186329@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Workqueue performance  (Jason Armstrong <ja@riverdrums.com>)
List pgsql-general
Jason Armstrong <ja@riverdrums.com> writes:
> 1. NOTIFY/LISTEN was causing performance to degrade badly over time. I
> have reworked my code to poll the database instead.

FWIW, you need to ensure pg_listener gets vacuumed pretty aggressively
in order to prevent degradation in a high-traffic NOTIFY application.

PG 9.0 will have a completely rewritten LISTEN/NOTIFY implementation
that avoids use of a table and should scale a lot better, as well as not
needing vacuuming support.  That doesn't help you right now, but
depending on what your development timescale is, you might want to plan
to go back to LISTEN/NOTIFY later.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: postgreSQL enquiry
Next
From: Scott Mead
Date:
Subject: Re: creating a table based on a table in stored in another database