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>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB5wL7YB1my9W5k5i=SY+=sTjeozyJ0YkvGXrVfeDNzuRkoTPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 18:22:23 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwGV3ufcdXnW6JLBhejfptCJRGs7Jrp03YPoO7V_b-2MFA@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/CAHGQGwGV3ufcdXnW6JLBhejfptCJRGs7Jrp03YPoO7V_b-2MFA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 4:05=E2=80=AFPM H=C3=BCseyin Demir <huseyin.d3r@gma=
il.com> wrote:
> 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.

I agree it's worth adding such tests. From a quick look at the regression t=
ests,
there don't seem to be any tests for log_lock_waits itself. So before addin=
g
tests for the behavior introduced by the patch, we might first need to add
some basic tests for log_lock_waits.

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao