Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> No loss, but, per previous discussion, it would block and try to get
> other backends to collect their outstanding notifications.
>
> Let's say we provide 100Kb for this (which is not a heck of a lot) ,
> that the average notification might be, say, 40 bytes of name plus 60
> bytes of message. Then we have room for about 1000 messages in the
> queue. This would get ugly only if backend presumably in the middle of
> some very long transaction, refused to pick up its messages despite
> prodding. But ISTM that means we just need to pick a few strategic spots
> that will call CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS() even in the middle of a
> transaction and store them locally.
Sounds good.
Regards, Dave.