Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 15:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes. That is the case with the existing implementation as well, no?
>> We don't consider sending notifies until transaction end, so anything
>> that commits during the xact in which you UNLISTEN will get dropped.
> Only if the transaction containing UNLISTEN commits. Are you saying it
> would also be OK to drop NOTIFYs if a backend's UNLISTEN transaction
> aborts?
No, I would say not, but that wasn't being proposed was it? The
decisions about what to do are only made at/after commit.
> Thinking out loud: If we're taking this approach, I wonder if it might
> be a good idea to PreventTransactionChain for LISTEN and UNLISTEN?
That shouldn't be necessary IMO. There's never been such a restriction
before.
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
