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.