From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Filip Rembiałkowski <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:49:52 -0500
Message-ID: <7647.1454723392@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYiKedu0vUXFQHKpJ1COmT7sNJd2KOLLtXQTQc6Ztgkug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP_rwwn2z0gPOn8GuQ3qDVS5+HgEcG2EzEOyiJtcA=vpDEhoCg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYiKedu0vUXFQHKpJ1COmT7sNJd2KOLLtXQTQc6Ztgkug@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski
> <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> - new GUC in "Statement Behaviour" section, notify_duplicate_removal
> I agree with what Merlin said about this:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHyXU0yoHe8Qc=yC10AHU1nFiA1tbHsg+35Ds-oEueUapo7t4g@mail.gmail....
Yeah, I agree that a GUC for this is quite unappetizing.
One idea would be to build a hashtable to aid with duplicate detection
(perhaps only once the pending-notify list gets long).
Another thought is that it's already the case that duplicate detection is
something of a "best effort" activity; note for example the comment in
AsyncExistsPendingNotify pointing out that we don't collapse duplicates
across subtransactions. Would it be acceptable to relax the standards
a bit further? For example, if we only checked for duplicates among the
last N notification list entries (for N say around 100), we'd probably
cover just about all the useful cases, and the runtime would stay linear.
The data structure isn't tremendously conducive to that, but it could be
done.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com
Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
In-Reply-To: <7647.1454723392@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox