Re: Optimize LISTEN/NOTIFY

"Joel Jacobson" <joel@compiler.org> writes:
> Thanks for reviewing. However, like said in my previous email, I'm
> sorry, but don't believe in my suggested throughput/latency approach. I
> unfortunately managed to derail from the IMO more promising approaches I
> worked on initially.
> What I couldn't find a solution to then, was the problem of possibly
> ending up in a situation where some lagging backends would never catch
> up.
> In this new patch, I've simply introduced a new bgworker, given the
> specific task of kicking lagging backends. I wish of course we could do
> without the bgworker, but I don't see how that would be possible.

I don't understand why you feel you need a bgworker.  The existing
code does not have any provision that guarantees a lost signal will
eventually be re-sent --- it will be if there is continuing NOTIFY
traffic, but not if all the senders suddenly go quiet.  AFAIR
we've had zero complaints about that in 25+ years.  So I'm perfectly
content to continue the approach of "check for laggards during
NOTIFY".  (This could be gated behind an overall check on how long the
notify queue is, so that we don't expend the cycles when things are
performing as-expected.)  If you feel that that's not robust enough,
you should split it out as a separate patch that's advertised as a
robustness improvement not a performance improvement, and see if you
can get anyone to bite.

The other thing I'm concerned about with this patch is the new shared
hash table.  I don't think we have anywhere near a good enough fix on
how big it needs to be, and that is problematic because of the
frozen-at-startup size of main shared memory.  We could imagine
inventing YA GUC to let the user tell us how big to make it,
but I think there is now a better way: use a dshash table
(src/backend/lib/dshash.c).  That offers the additional win that we
don't have to create it at all in an installation that never uses
LISTEN/NOTIFY.  We could also rethink whether we really need the
NOTIFY_MULTICAST_THRESHOLD limit: rather than having two code paths,
we could just say that all listeners are registered for every channel.

			regards, tom lane