From: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY testing woes |
Date: | 2019-11-24 04:50:52 |
Message-ID: | e32529be-ce94-b938-9e0d-601fb885a3ae@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/23/19 5:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I ran into a couple of issues while trying to devise a regression test
> illustrating the LISTEN-in-serializable-transaction issue Mark Dilger
> reported. The first one is that an isolation test in which we expect
> to see a cross-process NOTIFY immediately after a COMMIT turns out to
> be not very stable: on my machine, it works as long as you're just
> running the isolation tests by themselves, but it usually falls over
> if I'm running check-world with any amount of parallelism. The reason
> for this seems to be that incoming notifies are only checked for when
> we're about to wait for client input. At that point we've already
> sent the ReadyForQuery ('Z') protocol message, which will cause libpq
> to stand down from looking for more input and return a null from
> PQgetResult(). Depending on timing, the following Notify protocol
> messages might arrive quickly enough that isolationtester.c sees them
> before it goes off to do something else, but that's not very reliable.
Thanks for working on this, Tom.
I have finished reading and applying your three patches and have moved
on to testing them. I hope to finish the review soon.
--
Mark Dilger
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2019-11-24 09:51:03 | Re: Copyright information in source files |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2019-11-24 01:54:40 | Re: Copyright information in source files |