Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively
Date: 2019-07-27 22:20:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Perhaps we could just have isolationtester check to which
>> isolationtester session the backend pid belongs? And then print the
>> session name instead of the pid? That should be fairly easy, and would
>> probably give us all we need?

> Oh, that's a good idea -- it's already tracking all the backend PIDs,
> so probably not much extra work to do it like that.

I found out that to avoid confusion, one really wants the message to
identify both the sending and receiving sessions. Here's a patch
that does it that way and extends the async-notify.spec test to
perform basic end-to-end checks on LISTEN/NOTIFY.

I intentionally made the test show the lack of NOTIFY de-deduplication
that currently happens with subtransactions. If we change this as I
proposed in <17822(dot)1564186806(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, this test output will

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
test-listen-notify-better-1.patch text/x-diff 13.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-07-27 22:37:58 Re: tap tests driving the database via psql
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2019-07-27 22:19:48 Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling