Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 11:55:36 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.
Message-ID: <20200310025536.GC4369@paquier.xyz>
References: <20200306131547.GA2904@nol>
 <20200307014142.GC1531@paquier.xyz>
 <20200307061615.c47sju2bytuiaazv@nol>
 <8441.1583595994@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20200307205328.ffidfyo3me46qscn@nol>
 <15903.1583615371@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20200307211709.6kfpiddif4uxafg5@nol>
 <20200309221558.7kd5fuks2alvtsex@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20200310021459.GA4369@paquier.xyz>
 <28752.1583807547@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tqI+Z3u+9OQ7kwn0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <28752.1583807547@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk


--tqI+Z3u+9OQ7kwn0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:32:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It strikes me to wonder whether we could improve matters by teaching
> isolationtester to watch for particular values in a connected backend's
> pg_stat_activity.wait_event_type/wait_event columns.  Those columns
> didn't exist when isolationtester was designed, IIRC, so it's not
> surprising that they're not used in the current design.  But we could
> use them perhaps to detect that a backend has arrived at some state
> that's not a heavyweight-lock-wait state.

Interesting idea.  So that would be basically an equivalent of
PostgresNode::poll_query_until but for the isolation tester?  In short
we gain a meta-command that runs a SELECT query that waits until the
query defined in the command returns true.  The polling interval may
be tricky to set though.  If set too low it would consume resources
for nothing, and if set too large it would make the tests using this
meta-command slower than they actually need to be.  Perhaps something
like 100ms may be fine..
--
Michael

--tqI+Z3u+9OQ7kwn0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=/hWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tqI+Z3u+9OQ7kwn0--