Re: client_connection_check_interval default value

From: Hüseyin Demir <huseyin(dot)d3r(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: client_connection_check_interval default value
Date: 2026-03-17 19:59:04
Message-ID: CAB5wL7amNFF3zA=h5R3Wx1aQZR-EKzv485LyYMLbB9X7dhx2Ew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, 16 Mar 2026 Pzt, 10:22 tarihinde
şunu yazdı:
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 4:05 PM Hüseyin Demir <huseyin(dot)d3r(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The new v2 patch looks good to me.
> >
> > One open question from my side is should we include a test for this
> > behaviour ? Because we mentioned adding a different GUC in the future
> > to manage this rate-limiting approach. It can be useful in the future
> > once we consider/re-visit this approach. If the tests and other future
> > ideas can be developed later together we can consider adding tests
> > later.
>
> I agree it's worth adding such tests. From a quick look at the regression tests,
> there don't seem to be any tests for log_lock_waits itself. So before adding
> tests for the behavior introduced by the patch, we might first need to add
> some basic tests for log_lock_waits.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao

I created a regression test for the behaviour we mentioned before
introducing further possible changes.

You can review it. Basically I tried to simulate the desired behaviour
which the current patch introduced.

Regards.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-0001-add-regression-tests-for-still-waiting-on-lock-log-message.patch application/octet-stream 5.7 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter 'PMc' Much 2026-03-17 20:01:35 Re: Need help debugging SIGBUS crashes
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2026-03-17 19:57:06 Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]