Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
Date
Msg-id 6118.1205200702@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit  (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>)
Responses Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
List pgsql-hackers
Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> writes:
> ... I think the transaction overhead, and 
> attempts to re-use PostgreSQL tables to implement LISTEN/NOTIFY to be 
> clever but mis-guided.

Oh, I don't disagree with you.  As I already mentioned, they desperately
need to be rewritten.  However, given that that's not a sanely
back-patchable answer, we have to consider what are the appropriate
semantics for the existing infrastructure.

(Also, if they *were* memory-based then the question of their relation
to 2PC semantics becomes even more urgent.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Mielke
Date:
Subject: Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
Next
From: Mark Mielke
Date:
Subject: Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit