test: synchronize two-session receive lock harness#220
Merged
Conversation
This was referenced May 7, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #175.\n\nThe original harness waited for
subscription.sub_batch is not nullfrom another session, but that update is uncommitted while session1 holds the transaction, so the poll only succeeds after the lock is already gone.\n\nThis changes synchronization to:\n- give session1 a uniqueapplication_name;\n- pollpg_stat_activityuntil session1 is visibly insidepg_sleep()with the transaction open;\n- only then launch session2.\n\nLocal PG17 check on current main now fails meaningfully:\n\ntext\nFAIL: session2 returned batch 2; expected session1 batch 1\nsession2 receive time: ~3.5s\n\n\nThat is the intended RED behavior until the receive row-lock/idempotency fix lands.