| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Teach isolation tester about injection points in background workers |
| Date: | 2026-03-25 02:19:15 |
| Message-ID: | acNGIywkRFxmOzli@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 04:25:47PM +0530, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla wrote:
> +1. I was thinking can we move the logic of checking if bg workers are the
> reason of blocking the main backend
> inside pg_isolation_test_session_is_blocked
> to make it cleaner, and regarding "XXX Should we use a separate query for
> that?"
> i am confused here IIUC if we keep it as 1 query using UNION every time its
> for sure
> that both the queries will run, which can increase more execution time but
> less libpq/socket
> calls, but if we send as 2 queries if 1st query doesn't returns true we
> have to go and
> check the other query, so here if 2 queries ran then execution +
> libpq/socket calls overhead,
> so i am slightly inclined towards separating the queries , so that if 1st
> gets satisfied then
> we don't touch the 2nd query at all, please correct me if i am wrong here :)
Is there a benefit in this change outside the hypothetical REPACK
CONCURRENTLY? Using separating queries may make more sense on
readability ground, at least.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-03-25 02:28:17 | Re: [PATCH] Fix premature timeout in pg_promote() caused by signal interruptions |
| Previous Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2026-03-25 02:10:05 | Re: log_checkpoints: count WAL segment creations from all processes |