Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:6118.1205200702@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Mark Mielke <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:mark@mark.mielke.cc"><mark@mark.mielke.cc></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">... I think the transaction overhead, and
attempts to re-use PostgreSQL tables to implement LISTEN/NOTIFY to be
clever but mis-guided. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
Oh, I don't disagree with you. As I already mentioned, they desperately
need to be rewritten. However, given that that's not a sanely
back-patchable answer, we have to consider what are the appropriate
semantics for the existing infrastructure.
(Also, if they *were* memory-based then the question of their relation
to 2PC semantics becomes even more urgent.) </pre></blockquote><br /> Ah k - so count my vote as "I don't think LISTEN
shouldbe impacted by what sort of COMMIT I use, but I don't believe I'll be using LISTEN as it is today, and I
definatelywon't be using it in two-phase commit today." For me that is "it should be usable in a two-phase commit - but
it'snot usable today." Sorry this isn't a clear answer to your question.<br /><br /> Cheers,<br /> mark<br /><br /><pre
class="moz-signature"cols="72">--
Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a>
</pre>