Re: client_connection_check_interval default value

> On Mar 13, 2026, at 20:36, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:42 AM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2026, at 22:12, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:03 PM Hüseyin Demir <huseyin(dot)d3r(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Fujii,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the patch. The rate-limiting approach makes sense to me. A couple of thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> 1) I think Chao Li's suggestion of using max(10s, deadlock_timeout) as the rate limit interval is worth adopting. If someone has set deadlock_timeout to, say, 30s or 60s, they've already signaled they don't need frequent lock-wait feedback. Logging every 10s after a 60s deadlock_timeout feels inconsistent with that intent.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps they expect the log message to be emitted only once,
>>> just after deadlock_timeout, similar to the current behavior when
>>> client_connection_check_interval is not set, I guess.
>>>
>>> I'm now starting thinking it might be better to preserve the existing
>>> behavior (emitting the message once per wait) regardless of whether
>>> client_connection_check_interval is set, and implement that first.
>>>
>>> If there is a need to emit the message periodically, we could add that
>>> as a separate feature later so that it works independently of
>>> the client_connection_check_interval setting.
>>>
>>> Thought?
>>
>> Yeah, IMHO, preserving the existing behavior is preferable. Logically, client_connection_check_interval and log_lock_waitsbelong to two different departments. Even though they cross paths at the implementation level today, having the behavior of log_lock_waits change just because client_connection_check_interval is adjusted seems surprising.
>
> So, attached is a patch that ensures the "still waiting on lock" message is
> reported at most once during a lock wait, even if the wait is interrupted.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
> <v2-0001-Ensure-still-waiting-on-lock-message-is-logged-on.patch>

V2 overall looks good to me.

A small comment is about the variable name logged_lock_waits that sounds like “count of waits”, I would suggest “lock_wait_logged”. But I see that the name follows the naming convention of the existing variable logged_recovery_conflict, so maybe just rename to logged_lock_wait (remove the “s”).

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