| From: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: timeout value overflow in wait for lsn |
| Date: | 2026-08-31 14:06:38 |
| Message-ID: | tencent_F49415993E3CAA832ABB9C5088C2DFDAF807@qq.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> --- The divergence
> Rounding like this does not make a lot of sense to me in the first
> place, especially when the value rounded down to is zero, which
> disables the timeout in lots of places. I don't know whether users
> have ever been surprised by this behavior and why it was designed like
> this. One reason for this seems to be that the value is small enough
> to do so.
>
> The general GUC doc says:
> fractional values are rounded to the nearest integer if the parameter
> is of integer type.
> If a fractional value is specified with a unit, it will be rounded to
> a multiple of the next smaller unit if there is one.
>
> However, the individual statement_timeout and lock_timeout
> descriptions do not clearly warn that a nonzero or negative spelling
> can round to zero and consequently disable the timeout. They only
> state that zero disables it.
>
> I am wondering whether the timeout in WAIT FOR needs to take a
> different path since it is not constrained with backward
> compatibility.
How about just keeping it consistent with GUC: use parse_int() and
error out if timeout < 0. I didn't see users complaining about this
behavior.
--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v6-0001-Prevent-overflow-in-WAIT-FOR-LSN-timeout-handling.patch | application/octet-stream | 6.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2026-08-31 14:23:05 | Re: Commit Sequence Numbers and Visibility |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2026-08-31 13:57:35 | Re: Re-read conindid under the referenced table's lock in the RI fast path |