Joachim Wieland <j...@mcknight.de> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I guess Joachim is trying to provide a similar guarantee for the new
>> implementation, but I'm not clear on why it would require locking.
> It is rather about a listening backend seeing a notification in the
> global queue without knowing if it should deliver the notification to
> its frontend or not. The backend needs to know if its own LISTEN
> committed before or after the NOTIFY committed that it sees in the
> queue.
In that case I think you've way overcomplicated matters. Just deliver
the notification. We don't really care if the listener gets additional
notifications; the only really bad case would be if it failed to get an
event that was generated after it committed a LISTEN.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
