| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hüseyin Demir <huseyin(dot)d3r(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: | 2026-03-16 09:22:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGV3ufcdXnW6JLBhejfptCJRGs7Jrp03YPoO7V_b-2MFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ryo Matsumura (Fujitsu) | 2026-03-16 09:36:56 | Re: [PATCH] Docs: clarify default values of EXPLAIN BUFFERS and SERIALIZE |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-03-16 09:21:50 | Re: client_connection_check_interval default value |