Re: async notification patch for dblink

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> Sure, I guess I ought to use the latest-and-greatest. Any other comments
>> before I commit?
>
> That "be_pid/be_pid" hack in the regression test is pretty ugly, and
> doesn't test anything very useful anyway seeing that it's integer
> division. Could you do something like
> be_pid = pg_backend_pid() AS is_self_notify
> instead, to verify that it's a self-notify? (This is not quite right
> because you'd need to execute pg_backend_pid() at the remote end, but
> I'm not awake enough to remember the dblink syntax for that. Maybe
> it's too complex to be worth it, but I think demonstrating how to
> check for self-notify would be a useful bit of doco.)
>
> Otherwise it looks ok to me.

OK, still not pretty, but at least more useful. Last call for
comments...I hope ;-)

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=JQmH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----