Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively
Date: 2019-07-27 20:53:35
Message-ID: CAH2-WznKGybvVOhP06MPxGMD6zyWYQtL8u+XLc4K2wtB1a19Hg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I just found out that on a slow enough machine
> (prairiedog's host) there *is* some variation in when that test's
> notices come out. I am unsure whether that's to be expected or
> whether there's something wrong there --- Peter, any thoughts?

I don't know why this happens, but it's worth noting that the plpgsql
function that raises these notices ("blurt_and_lock()") is marked
IMMUTABLE (not sure if you noticed that already). This is a deliberate
misrepresentation which is needed to acquire advisory locks at just
the right points during execution.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that it had something to do with that. I
might be able to come up with a better explanation if I saw the diff.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-07-27 21:14:55 Re: tap tests driving the database via psql
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2019-07-27 20:34:12 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)