Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > What's the actual reason for the restriction then? > > Well, NOTIFY doesn't seem very sensible for a read-only slave to > execute: it can't change the database state so there's nothing for > it to notify about. Ideally we should allow slave sessions to LISTEN > to notify events that were generated on the master, though. The recent > patch eliminates the major impediments to doing that, but we're still > shy of some infrastructure to do it --- mainly, some code to push > notify events through the WAL stream. (Presumably this would have to be > something you could enable or disable, because WAL-logging notifies > on a machine that wasn't an HS master would be a large and very useless > performance overhead.)
I assumed people would want to do listen/notify on the slave only, or is there no good use for that? I don't see passing notify information from the master to the slave as useful. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
