public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Hüseyin Demir <[email protected]>
To: Fujii Masao <[email protected]>
Cc: Chao Li <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: client_connection_check_interval default value
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:04:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB5wL7YB1my9W5k5i=SY+=sTjeozyJ0YkvGXrVfeDNzuRkoTPg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHGQGwEBvWXU4sdu2DMxaUWdPYQvGesr1VPyX-WnSxtW9nN6UA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
	<CAHGQGwH7c5X4OkPaQ6VDaLGoFgJgwf_-HNwUi2uXoiAhkFkkyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<177304694613.1094603.10800724073727441272.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
	<CAHGQGwG_Ud-N1zrULv8fE51-CUd2ZF3eDe7jUdNOm-rt_JgcQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAHGQGwEBvWXU4sdu2DMxaUWdPYQvGesr1VPyX-WnSxtW9nN6UA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Fujii Masao <[email protected]>, 13 Mar 2026 Cum, 13:36 tarihinde
şunu yazdı:
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:42 AM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 9, 2026, at 22:12, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:03 PM Hüseyin Demir <[email protected]> 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.
>

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.

Thanks for the patch again!

Regards.

view thread (22+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: client_connection_check_interval default value
  In-Reply-To: <CAB5wL7YB1my9W5k5i=SY+=sTjeozyJ0YkvGXrVfeDNzuRkoTPg@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox