On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 11:43 +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> Examples:
>
> Backend 1: Backend 2:
>
> transaction starts
> NOTIFY foo;
> commit starts
> transaction starts
> LISTEN foo;
> commit starts
> commit to clog
> commit to clog
>
> => Backend 2 will receive Backend 1's notification.
How does the existing notification mechanism solve this problem? Is it
really a problem? Why would Backend2 expect to receive the notification?
>
> Backend 1: Backend 2:
>
> transaction starts
> NOTIFY foo;
> commit starts
> transaction starts
> UNLISTEN foo;
> commit starts
> commit to clog
> commit to clog
>
> => Backend 2 will not receive Backend 1's notification.
This is the same problem, except that it doesn't matter. A spurious
notification is not a bug, right?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
