MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20260204213032.15bab46b@ardentperf.com>
 <CAHGQGwH7c5X4OkPaQ6VDaLGoFgJgwf_-HNwUi2uXoiAhkFkkyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <177304694613.1094603.10800724073727441272.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <CAHGQGwG_Ud-N1zrULv8fE51-CUd2ZF3eDe7jUdNOm-rt_JgcQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <017AD77A-21B6-4B0A-8847-207914D53CE0@gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwEBvWXU4sdu2DMxaUWdPYQvGesr1VPyX-WnSxtW9nN6UA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB5wL7YB1my9W5k5i=SY+=sTjeozyJ0YkvGXrVfeDNzuRkoTPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwGV3ufcdXnW6JLBhejfptCJRGs7Jrp03YPoO7V_b-2MFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB5wL7amNFF3zA=h5R3Wx1aQZR-EKzv485LyYMLbB9X7dhx2Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwHPcgESm_cqQ52xeJtLFjfFY4hr+s6byYiojNKOwxO3Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB5wL7aSJ5Cw1VdX5V0L4s3t+T2=M=yXo07sC+JLdKggkLCkdA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB5wL7aSJ5Cw1VdX5V0L4s3t+T2=M=yXo07sC+JLdKggkLCkdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 23:55:08 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwE6BJjZjux86jE4im3axnSNK4R8DgKU6KnyPpCgWjNj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: client_connection_check_interval default value
To: =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=BCseyin_Demir?= <huseyin.d3r@gmail.com>
Cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwE6BJjZjux86jE4im3axnSNK4R8DgKU6KnyPpCgWjNj3Q%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 10:00=E2=80=AFPM H=C3=BCseyin Demir <huseyin.d3r@gma=
il.com> wrote:
> Appreciated for the patch. I reviewed it quickly.
>
> In the test description it says that `still waiting logged exactly once d=
espite pg_reload_conf() wakeups")` but the test sends via pg_log_backend_me=
mory_contexts(). It would make sense to update it.
>
> ```
>   -  1, "still waiting logged exactly once despite pg_reload_conf() wakeu=
ps");
>   +  1, "still waiting logged exactly once despite wakeups from pg_log_ba=
ckend_memory_contexts()");
> ```
>
> Secondly, before finishing the test it tries to check that no log_lock_wa=
its messages are emitted. But the comment has the opposite meaning.
>
> ```
>   - 'check that log_lock_waits message is emitted when the lock is acquir=
ed after waiting'
>   + 'check that no log_lock_waits message is emitted when the lock is acq=
uired after waiting'
> ```
>
> I'm not sure they need to change but these are the only topics I wanted t=
o add. Otherwise, lgtm and thanks.
>
> I attached the v3 to convey my ideas. You can use it or update the existi=
ng if you think the suggestions are reasonable.

Thanks for the review and for updating the patch!
Your changes look good to me.

I also added a comment explaining why the test wakes the backend,
and then pushed the patch. Thanks again!

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao