Re: Listen / Notify - what to do when the queue is full
Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>
From: Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Arnaud Betremieux <arnaud.betremieux@keyconsulting.fr>
Date: 2010-02-03T09:34:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote: >> Thanks, very well spotted... Actually the same is true for LISTEN... I >> have reworked the patch to do the changes to listenChannels only in >> the post-commit functions. > > I'm worried that this creates the opposite problem: that a LISTEN > transaction might commit before a NOTIFY transaction, and yet miss the > notification. See the following comment and let me know if you agree... ! /* ! * Exec_ListenBeforeCommit --- subroutine for AtCommit_NotifyBeforeCommit ! * ! * Note that we do only set our pointer here and do not yet add the channel to ! * listenChannels. Since our transaction could still roll back we do this only ! * after commit. We know that our tail pointer won't move between here and ! * directly after commit, so we won't miss a notification. ! */ However this introduces a new problem when an initial LISTEN aborts: Then we are not listening to anything but for other backends it looks like we were. This is tracked by the boolean variable backendExecutesInitialListen and gets cleaned up in AtAbort_Notify(). > It seems safest to me to add a backend (LISTEN) to the list before > commit, and remove a backend (UNLISTEN) after commit. That way we are > sure to only receive spurious notifications, and can't miss any. If a LISTEN aborted we would not only receive a few spurious notifications from it but would receive notifications on this channel forever even though we have never executed LISTEN on it successfully. Joachim