Horton

Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2019-07-27T23:27:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> We could of course just send the pids in binary ;). No, not worth it
> just to avoid a small redundant array ;)

IIRC, we'd have to do htonl on them, so we'd still end up with
two representations ...

> Hm. I wonder if all that's happening with prairedog is that the notice
> is sent a bit later. I think that could e.g. conceivably happen because
> it TCP_NODELAY isn't supported on prariedog? Or just because the machine
> is very slow?

The notices (not notifies) are coming out in the opposite order from
expected.  I haven't really thought hard about what's causing that;
it seems odd, because isolationtester isn't supposed to give up waiting
for a session until it's visibly blocked according to pg_locks.  Maybe
it needs to recheck for incoming data once more after seeing that?

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Improve test coverage for LISTEN/NOTIFY.

  2. Don't drop NOTICE messages in isolation tests.

  3. Fix isolationtester race condition for notices sent before blocking.