Re: Lock/deadlock issues with priority queue in Postgres - possible VACUUM conflicts - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Marko Kreen
Subject Re: Lock/deadlock issues with priority queue in Postgres - possible VACUUM conflicts
Date
Msg-id CACMqXC+HS5nKZzSDmEC0pLdZ-kXwHCr9OeXAUCVZiG7XZAehaA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Lock/deadlock issues with priority queue in Postgres - possible VACUUM conflicts  (Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Lock/deadlock issues with priority queue in Postgres - possible VACUUM conflicts
List pgsql-general
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGQ_Tutorial
>
> PGQ looks promising, but I can't afford the risk of losing calls in
> the event that there are no workers to process them (the correct
> action is for them simply to languish in the database until one is
> started up).

PGQ does not lose events - after consumer registers
on the queue it is guaranteed to see all events.

So it's a matter of registering your consumers
before anything interesting happens in database.
The actual consumers do not need to be running
at that moment.

--
marko

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!
Next
From: hubert depesz lubaczewski
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!