[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [GENERAL] pg_listening_channels()
From:       Igor Neyman <ineyman () perceptron ! com>
Date:       2012-11-30 19:33:17
Message-ID: A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70EC08F06E01 () mail ! corp ! perceptron ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Sabino Mullane [mailto:greg@turnstep.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:34 PM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: pg_listening_channels()
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it was very well discussed and designed. Why do you
> even care if the anyone is listening or not? Simply remove the "check
> if anyone listens" step and send the NOTIFY.
> 

Well, I guess we disagree on this.

Why trashing the system with NOTIFYs no one listens to?
Of course, like Tom Lane suggested, I could create a table similar to now obsolete \
pg_listener and manage it from the client that LISTENs and gets notifications.

Also, what sense pg_listening_channels() function makes, if it returns channels that \
I created (in my current session/connection)?   I don't need this function to know \
whether I issued LISTEN my_channel or not.

Regards,
Igor Neyman 


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]