Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> We could of course just send the pids in binary ;). No, not worth it
> just to avoid a small redundant array ;)

IIRC, we'd have to do htonl on them, so we'd still end up with
two representations ...

> Hm. I wonder if all that's happening with prairedog is that the notice
> is sent a bit later. I think that could e.g. conceivably happen because
> it TCP_NODELAY isn't supported on prariedog? Or just because the machine
> is very slow?

The notices (not notifies) are coming out in the opposite order from
expected. I haven't really thought hard about what's causing that;
it seems odd, because isolationtester isn't supposed to give up waiting
for a session until it's visibly blocked according to pg_locks. Maybe
it needs to recheck for incoming data once more after seeing that?

regards, tom lane