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 17:53:06
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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