Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)
Дата
Msg-id 18351.1025635817@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I don't see a huge value to using shared memory.   Once we get
> auto-vacuum, pg_listener will be fine,

No it won't.  The performance of notify is *always* going to suck
as long as it depends on going through a table.  This is particularly
true given the lack of any effective way to index pg_listener; the
more notifications you feed through, the more dead rows there are
with the same key...

> and shared memory like SI is just
> too hard to get working reliabily because of all the backends
> reading/writing in there.

A curious statement considering that PG depends critically on SI
working.  This is a solved problem.
        regards, tom lane




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)