Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue
Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>
From: "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>
To: "Arseniy Mukhin" <arseniy.mukhin.dev@gmail.com>, "Masahiko Sawada"
<sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>, "Joel Jacobson" <joel@compiler.org>, "Rishu Bagga" <rishu.postgres@gmail.com>, "Yura Sokolov" <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>, "Daniil Davydov" <3danissimo@gmail.com>, "Alexandra Wang" <alexandra.wang.oss@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2025-10-25T00:33:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri Oct 24, 2025 at 4:36 AM -03, Arseniy Mukhin wrote: >> I would expect to add 002_aborted_tx_notifies.pl in a separate patch >> since it's not related to this bug fix. >> >> --- >> +# Test checks that listeners do not receive notifications from aborted >> +# transaction even if notifications have been added to the listen/notify >> +# queue. To reproduce it we use the fact that serializable conflicts >> +# are checked after tx adds notifications to the queue. >> >> I wonder if we could implement this test using the isolation test >> instead of the tap test. Is there any reason why you used a tap test >> for that? >> > > I agree it's less relevant to the patch now than it was with the new > 'committed' field approach. And there is no particular reason why it > was implemented as a TAP test actually.. So +1 to move it to separate > patch (does it mean to separate thread as well or just separate patch > file?) and rewrite as an isolation test (IIUC it's better to use > isolation test infrastructure if it's possible). I can try to do it if > nobody else does it earlier. > On the v11 version that I've sent on [1] I've move this test into a separate patch, please feel free to implement it as an isolation test if you want it. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/DDQZB2AD34V4.3RH2USCA72AS8%40gmail.com -- Matheus Alcantara