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