From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 00:09:12 -0400
Message-ID: <32581.1583813352@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <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>
<20200310025536.GC4369@paquier.xyz>
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> 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?
No, more like the existing isolationtester wait query, which watches
for something being blocked on a heavyweight lock. Right now, that
one depends on a bespoke function pg_isolation_test_session_is_blocked(),
but it used to be a query on pg_stat_activity/pg_locks.
> 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.
I think it'd be just the same as the polling interval for the existing
wait query. We'd have to have some way to mark a script step to say
what to check to decide that it's blocked ...
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, michael@paquier.xyz, andres@anarazel.de, rjuju123@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.
In-Reply-To: <32581.1583813352@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