Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f030EG717398
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:14:16 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f030EmB14514;
	Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:14:48 -0500 (EST)
To: Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com>
cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Asynchronous interface help? 
In-reply-to: <20010102134030.A25130@newsnipple.com> 
References: <20010102134030.A25130@newsnipple.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com>
	message dated "Tue, 02 Jan 2001 13:40:30 -0800"
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:14:48 -0500
Message-ID: <14511.978480888@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200101/19
X-Sequence-Number: 628

Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com> writes:
> This always seems to time out.  Is there some mode that I need to put
> the backend into in order to make the socket valid?

It seems like there should be a loop around the
select/consumeinput/notifies sequence, but perhaps that's provided
outside the pqwait() function?  As it stands, you're assuming that
the first data delivered will be the notify you want.

Another possible problem is if you are expecting this to fire within
a transaction block.  Notifications are only delivered outside of
transactions.

			regards, tom lane