From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 19:27:17 -0400
Message-ID: <10166.1564270037@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190727231826.g34yqkzj53ey46tl@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <31304.1564246011@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20190727174202.jiwr4jgp3x7gvp22@alap3.anarazel.de>
<5720.1564249986@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<29162.1564266052@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20190727231826.g34yqkzj53ey46tl@alap3.anarazel.de>
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively
In-Reply-To: <10166.1564270037@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox