Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... But ISTM that means we just need to pick a few strategic spots > that will call CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS() even in the middle of a > transaction and store them locally.
Minor comment --- I don't believe in having a separate "sprinkle" of notify-specific checks. It needs to be set up so that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS will deal with the catch-up-please signal. We've already done (most of) the work of making sure CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is called often enough, and AFAICS we'd end up needing CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS in exactly those same loops anyway. It definitely helps here that CHECK_FOR_NOTIFICATIONS need affect only localized state of a particular subsystem that nothing else depends on. I've been wishing we could handle SI inval at more places than we do now, but that seems a lot harder :-( regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly