On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 9:28 AM Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025, at 17:57, Arseniy Mukhin wrote:
> > IIUC it's impossible for the listener to stop somewhere in between
> > queueHeadBeforeWrite and queueHeadAfterWrite. If the listener has
> > managed to read the first notification from the notifier, it means the
> > notifier transaction is complete and the listener should stop only
> > after reading all notifications (so we should always see pos =
> > queueHeadAfterWrite or further).
> >
> > So If I haven't missed anything, I think we can use QUEUE_POS_EQUAL as
> > direct advancement condition:
> >
> > if (!QUEUE_BACKEND_IS_ADVANCING(i) && QUEUE_POS_EQUAL(pos,
> > queueHeadBeforeWrite))
> > {
> > QUEUE_BACKEND_POS(i) = queueHeadAfterWrite;
> > }
>
> I added some logging just to test the hypothesis:
>
> @@ -2072,6 +2082,12 @@ SignalBackends(void)
> {
> Assert(!QUEUE_POS_PRECEDES(pos, queueHeadBeforeWrite));
>
> + if (!QUEUE_POS_EQUAL(pos, queueHeadBeforeWrite))
> + elog(LOG, "Direct advancement: PID %d from pos (%lld,%d) to queueHeadAfterWrite (%lld,%d)",
> + pid,
> + (long long) QUEUE_POS_PAGE(pos), QUEUE_POS_OFFSET(pos),
> + (long long) QUEUE_POS_PAGE(queueHeadAfterWrite), QUEUE_POS_OFFSET(queueHeadAfterWrite));
> +
> QUEUE_BACKEND_POS(i) = queueHeadAfterWrite;
> }
> }
>
> And I'm getting a lot of such log entries when benchmarking
> `./pg_async_notify_test --listeners 1 --notifiers 1 --channels 50`
>
> I think this confirms that listeners can actually stop somewhere in between
> queueHeadBeforeWrite and queueHeadAfterWrite.
Ahh, yes, I think you are right. I missed that notifiers update the
head when they move to the next page. Thank you for the detailed
example and sorry for taking your time with it. I agree that
QUEUE_POS_PRECEDES(pos, queueHeadAfterWrite) is correct and covers
more cases where we can do direct advancement.
Best regards,
Arseniy Mukhin
