Re: LISTEN / NOTIFY performance in 8.3 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: LISTEN / NOTIFY performance in 8.3
Date
Msg-id 9940.1204068830@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: LISTEN / NOTIFY performance in 8.3  (James Mansion <james@mansionfamily.plus.com>)
Responses Re: LISTEN / NOTIFY performance in 8.3
List pgsql-performance
James Mansion <james@mansionfamily.plus.com> writes:
> I certainly hadn't expected that to be the implementation technique -
> isn't it smply that we need
> a sngle flag per worker process and can set/test-and-clear with atomic
> operations and then a
> signal to wake them up?

Hardly --- how's that going to pass a notify name?  Also, a lot of
people want some payload data in a notify, not just a condition name;
any reimplementation that doesn't address that desire probably won't
get accepted.

There's lots of threads in the -hackers archives about reimplementing
listen/notify in a saner fashion.  Personally I lean towards using
something much like the sinval queue.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: LISTEN / NOTIFY performance in 8.3
Next
From: "Markus Bertheau"
Date:
Subject: Re: disabling an index without deleting it?