On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:48:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:09:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Please review the archived discussions about reimplementing NOTIFY using > >> only shared memory, no tables. > > > Maybe this can be done using two SLRU areas like we did for multixact. > > If you are looking for an existing tool to adapt, I think the sinval > messaging mechanism is a FAR better prototype.
Hmm. The problem is that it's easy to do something if the sinval queue fills up -- just reset everybody's cache. But you can't just drop all pending notifies if the queue fills up. A possible approach to that problem would be spilling to disk the entries of the idle backends. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>) "[PostgreSQL] is a great group; in my opinion it is THE best open source development communities in existence anywhere." (Lamar Owen) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
