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: 2019-07-27T17:53:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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

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.