Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Heikki Linnakangas
Тема Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
Дата
Msg-id 47D6A360.4040400@enterprisedb.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> There's a small window between backend A committing and sending a 
>> NOTIFY, and the time client B receives the notification from backend B 
>> through the connection and reacts to it.
> 
> Sorry, I was unclear: the case that's of interest is telling
> self-notifies apart from others.  For this purpose, your own backend's
> PID *is* sufficiently stable, because you're still connected to it
> when the notify is sent to you.

Oh, I see. Yes, that's true.

>> This is all very hand-wavy of course, as we don't know of any real 
>> application that uses LISTEN/NOTIFY with 2PC...
> 
> Yeah.  I'm inclined to leave that alone (but document it) until/unless
> someone complains.  Without a real use-case to look at, it's a bit hard
> to be sure what's a useful behavior.

Yep.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout