Re: Make wal_receiver_timeout configurable per subscription

> On Feb 5, 2026, at 08:33, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 5:19 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 10:27 PM Fujii Masao
>> <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I've attached the rebased patches.
>>
>> Attached are the rebased versions of the patches.
>
> I've rebased the patches again.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
> <v4-0001-Make-GUC-wal_receiver_timeout-user-settable.patch><v4-0002-Add-per-subscription-wal_receiver_timeout-setting.patch>

Hi Fujii-san,

I applied the patch locally and played with it a bit. In short, it adds a new subscription option that allows overriding the GUC wal_receiver_timeout for a subscription’s apply worker. The changes look solid overall, and the new option worked as expected in my manual testing.

I have only one small comment:
```
+ /*
+ * Test if the given value is valid for wal_receiver_timeeout GUC.
+ * Skip this test if the value is -1, since -1 is allowed for the
+ * wal_receiver_timeout subscription option, but not for the GUC
+ * itself.
+ */
+ parsed = parse_int(opts->wal_receiver_timeout, &val, 0, NULL);
+ if (!parsed || val != -1)
+ (void) set_config_option("wal_receiver_timeout", opts->wal_receiver_timeout,
+ PGC_BACKEND, PGC_S_TEST, GUC_ACTION_SET,
+ false, 0, false);
```

Here, parse_int() is also from GUC, with flag 0, it will reject any value with units such as “1s” or “7d”. So in practice, the only purpose of calling parse_int() here is to detect the special value “-1”.

Given that, I think using atoi() directly may be simpler and easier to read. For example:
```
if (atoi(opts->wal_receiver_timeout) != -1)
/* if value is not -1, then test if the given value is valid for wal_receiver_timeeout GUC.
(void) set_config_option("wal_receiver_timeout", opts->wal_receiver_timeout,
PGC_BACKEND, PGC_S_TEST, GUC_ACTION_SET,
false, 0, false);
```

I tried this locally and `make check` still passed.

Similarly, later in set_wal_receiver_timeout(), MySubscription->walrcvtimeout has already been validated, so we could also use atoi() there instead of parse_int().

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/