Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-02 Thread Dave Page
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Steve Singer ssin...@ca.afilias.info wrote: On 11-06-01 09:30 AM, Christopher Browne wrote: On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org  wrote: On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net  wrote: The whole point of the

[HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Dave Page
The pg_listener table was removed in 9.0 in the revamp of LISTEN/NOTIFY. In pgAdmin we used to perform a number of selects from the table to get information about Slony clusters - for example, the PID of the slon process or to check if a process is listening for a specific notification. This

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 01.06.2011 13:09, Dave Page wrote: The pg_listener table was removed in 9.0 in the revamp of LISTEN/NOTIFY. In pgAdmin we used to perform a number of selects from the table to get information about Slony clusters - for example, the PID of the slon process or to check if a process is listening

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Dave Page
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 01.06.2011 13:09, Dave Page wrote: The pg_listener table was removed in 9.0 in the revamp of LISTEN/NOTIFY. In pgAdmin we used to perform a number of selects from the table to get information

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 06/01/2011 08:04 AM, Dave Page wrote: On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 01.06.2011 13:09, Dave Page wrote: The pg_listener table was removed in 9.0 in the revamp of LISTEN/NOTIFY. In pgAdmin we used to perform a number of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Dave Page
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: The whole point of the revamp was that pg_listener was a major performance bottleneck and needed to go, and without it being gone we would not have got notification payloads. Yeah, I know why it was replaced. That

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 The pg_listener table was removed in 9.0 in the revamp of LISTEN/NOTIFY. In pgAdmin we used to perform a number of selects from the table to get information about Slony clusters - for example, the PID of the slon process or to check if a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Dave Page
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 The pg_listener table was removed in 9.0 in the revamp of LISTEN/NOTIFY. In pgAdmin we used to perform a number of selects from the table to get information

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Christopher Browne
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: The whole point of the revamp was that pg_listener was a major performance bottleneck and needed to go, and without it being gone we would not have got

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: The pg_listener table was removed in 9.0 in the revamp of LISTEN/NOTIFY. In pgAdmin we used to perform a number of selects from the table to get information about Slony clusters - for example, the PID of the slon process or to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_listener in 9.0

2011-06-01 Thread Steve Singer
On 11-06-01 09:30 AM, Christopher Browne wrote: On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote: The whole point of the revamp was that pg_listener was a major performance bottleneck and needed to go,