Re: notification payloads

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>   
>> ... 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.
>>     
>
> Minor comment --- I don't believe in having a separate "sprinkle" of
> notify-specific checks.  It needs to be set up so that
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS will deal with the catch-up-please signal.  We've
> already done (most of) the work of making sure CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is
> called often enough, and AFAICS we'd end up needing
> CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS in exactly those same loops anyway.
>
>             
>   

OK, this works for me - it will make things simpler.

cheers

andrew