Bruce Momjian writes:
> 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.
You apparently haven't been reading the thread where we were discussing
the listen/notif
Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith 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 LI
Greg Smith 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 w
Greg Smith wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Oops, I did cleanup on the HS docs all day today in response to a doc
> > patch that was posted in December. How extensive are your changes?
> >
>
> Not very--wording improvements, typos, some technical clarification
> after quizzing Simon on inter
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Oops, I did cleanup on the HS docs all day today in response to a doc
patch that was posted in December. How extensive are your changes?
Not very--wording improvements, typos, some technical clarification
after quizzing Simon on internals that were described in a fuzzy
Greg Smith wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >
> >> Our documentation says listen/notify will return an error if executed on
> >> the hot standby server:
> >>
> >>o LISTEN, UNLISTEN, NOTIFY since they currently write to system tables
> >>
> >> With the listen/n
Greg Smith wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
The explanation is wrong, but it's still disallowed.
What's the actual reason for the restriction then? I did a whole
proofreading round on the HS documentation the other day and am
working on a patch to clean up everything I found, can add better
notes a
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Our documentation says listen/notify will return an error if executed on
the hot standby server:
o LISTEN, UNLISTEN, NOTIFY since they currently write to system tables
With the listen/notify system now implemented in memory, is this still
tr
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Our documentation says listen/notify will return an error if executed on
> > the hot standby server:
>
> > o LISTEN, UNLISTEN, NOTIFY since they currently write to system tables
>
> > With the listen/notify system now implemented in memory, is thi
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Our documentation says listen/notify will return an error if executed on
> the hot standby server:
> o LISTEN, UNLISTEN, NOTIFY since they currently write to system tables
> With the listen/notify system now implemented in memory, is this still
> true?
The explana
Our documentation says listen/notify will return an error if executed on
the hot standby server:
o LISTEN, UNLISTEN, NOTIFY since they currently write to system tables
With the listen/notify system now implemented in memory, is this still
true?
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjia
11 matches
Mail list logo
