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 13:53:06 -0400
Message-ID: <5720.1564249986@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190727174202.jiwr4jgp3x7gvp22@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <31304.1564246011@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20190727174202.jiwr4jgp3x7gvp22@alap3.anarazel.de>
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
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: <5720.1564249986@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