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
In-reply-to: <20190727174202.jiwr4jgp3x7gvp22@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <31304.1564246011@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190727174202.jiwr4jgp3x7gvp22@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:42:02 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5719.1564249986.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 13:53:06 -0400
Message-ID: <5720.1564249986@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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