| 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 17:53:06 |
| Message-ID: | 5720.1564249986@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-07-27 12:46:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm finding alternative #3 the most attractive, because we really
>> want isolation-style testing for LISTEN/NOTIFY, and this solution
>> doesn't require designing a psql feature that we'd need to get
>> consensus on.
> 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-27 18:15:39 | Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-07-27 17:42:02 | Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively |