Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 21:33:33 -0300
Message-Id: <DDQZBKAC1KZ4.3LT22J6Q74JV0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async
 queue
From: "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>
To: "Arseniy Mukhin" <arseniy.mukhin.dev@gmail.com>, "Masahiko Sawada"
 <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>,
 =?utf-8?q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>, "Joel Jacobson"
 <joel@compiler.org>, "Rishu Bagga" <rishu.postgres@gmail.com>, "Yura
 Sokolov" <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>, "Daniil Davydov"
 <3danissimo@gmail.com>, "Alexandra Wang" <alexandra.wang.oss@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Tom Lane"
 <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <DDOYDH17RU0G.1R4MKAZKP87QV@gmail.com>
 <202510221548.tgggefdrlpo3@alvherre.pgsql>
 <DDP0YT14VYUG.34K8AP6EHU2TR@gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoBKTF9SKSANX3xeXV9NjyDGYJeYEFN4duf--Tk=_exTYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE7r3MJK9irHqpZ9vfRmz-BZSjwq4oyjR4ppmaMp2g2GePf55g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAE7r3MJK9irHqpZ9vfRmz-BZSjwq4oyjR4ppmaMp2g2GePf55g@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/DDQZBKAC1KZ4.3LT22J6Q74JV0%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri Oct 24, 2025 at 4:36 AM -03, Arseniy Mukhin wrote:
>> I would expect to add 002_aborted_tx_notifies.pl in a separate patch
>> since it's not related to this bug fix.
>>
>> ---
>> +# Test checks that listeners do not receive notifications from aborted
>> +# transaction even if notifications have been added to the listen/notif=
y
>> +# queue. To reproduce it we use the fact that serializable conflicts
>> +# are checked after tx adds notifications to the queue.
>>
>> I wonder if we could implement this test using the isolation test
>> instead of the tap test. Is there any reason why you used a tap test
>> for that?
>>
>
> I agree it's less relevant to the patch now than it was with the new
> 'committed' field approach. And there is no particular reason why it
> was implemented as a TAP test actually.. So +1 to move it to separate
> patch (does it mean to separate thread as well or just separate patch
> file?) and rewrite as an isolation test (IIUC it's better to use
> isolation test infrastructure if it's possible). I can try to do it if
> nobody else does it earlier.
>
On the v11 version that I've sent on [1] I've move this test into a
separate patch, please feel free to implement it as an isolation test if
you want it.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/DDQZB2AD34V4.3RH2USCA72AS8%40gmai=
l.com

--
Matheus Alcantara