| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Marat Buharov <marat(dot)buharov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: client_connection_check_interval default value |
| Date: | 2026-02-18 08:03:48 |
| Message-ID: | b821da13765cd5a0c948e60cd5cd38856840d021.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2026-02-18 at 14:30 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 9:01 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > The issue is that backends blocked in ProcSleep() are woken up every
> > > client_connection_check_interval and may emit a "still waiting" message
> > > each time if log_lock_waits is enabled. To mitigate this, just one idea is
> > > to add a flag to track whether the "still waiting" message has already been
> > > emitted during a call to ProcSleep(), and suppress further messages
> > > once it has been logged.
> >
> > Independently of what's the default, it seems like it'd be valuable to
> > make that interaction better. I think it is reasonable to keep on
> > emitting "still waiting" every so often, but we could probably
> > rate-limit that to a lot less than every 2 seconds.
>
> Attached is a patch that rate-limits the "still waiting on lock" message
> to at most once every 10s.
>
> I chose 10s instead of the suggested 2s, since 2s felt too short. But we can
> discuss the appropriate interval and adjust it if needed. The value is
> currently hard-coded, as making it configurable does not seem necessary.
I think that 10 seconds is good.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-02-18 08:19:16 | Re: BUG #19095: Test if function exit() is used fail when linked static |
| Previous Message | Kirill Reshke | 2026-02-18 07:58:08 | Modernize error message for malformed B-Tree tuple posting |