Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively
Date
Msg-id 10166.1564270037@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Testing LISTEN/NOTIFY more effectively