MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6899c044-4a82-49be-8117-e6f669765f7e@app.fastmail.com>
 <165530.1752362320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <02a7cd37-e2fc-4212-8b19-f8c239c95fb8@app.fastmail.com>
 <e396ecf3-4227-4918-b9ff-e9568dcebcf0@app.fastmail.com>
 <b6a427fe-2ed6-4568-85d9-207a68172617@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b6a427fe-2ed6-4568-85d9-207a68172617@app.fastmail.com>
From: Rishu Bagga <rishu.postgres@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:20:42 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAK80=jhmE40KVqQ3ho37MArS7cAED1p9m7uikDxcnDmqdW7t8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Optimize LISTEN/NOTIFY
To: Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAK80%3DjhmE40KVqQ3ho37MArS7cAED1p9m7uikDxcnDmqdW7t8A%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Joel,

Thanks for sharing the patch.
I have a few questions based on a cursory first look.

> If a single listener is found, we signal only that backend.
> Otherwise, we fall back to the existing broadcast behavior.

The idea of not wanting to wake up all backends makes sense to me,
but I don=E2=80=99t understand why we want this optimization only for the c=
ase
where there is a single backend listening on a channel.

Is there a pattern of usage in LISTEN/NOTIFY where users typically
have either just one or several backends listening on a channel?

If we are doing this optimization, why not maintain a list of backends
for each channel, and only wake up those channels?

Thanks,
Rishu