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