MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20260204213032.15bab46b@ardentperf.com>
 <CAHGQGwH7c5X4OkPaQ6VDaLGoFgJgwf_-HNwUi2uXoiAhkFkkyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <177304694613.1094603.10800724073727441272.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <177304694613.1094603.10800724073727441272.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2026 23:12:29 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwG_Ud-N1zrULv8fE51-CUd2ZF3eDe7jUdNOm-rt_JgcQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: client_connection_check_interval default value
To: =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=BCseyin_Demir?= <huseyin.d3r@gmail.com>
Cc: 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/CAHGQGwG_Ud-N1zrULv8fE51-CUd2ZF3eDe7jUdNOm-rt_JgcQQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:03=E2=80=AFPM H=C3=BCseyin Demir <huseyin.d3r@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Fujii,
>
> Thanks for the patch. The rate-limiting approach makes sense to me. A cou=
ple of thoughts:
>
> 1) I think Chao Li's suggestion of using max(10s, deadlock_timeout) as th=
e rate limit interval is worth adopting. If someone has set deadlock_timeou=
t to, say, 30s or 60s, they've already signaled they don't need frequent lo=
ck-wait feedback. Logging every 10s after a 60s deadlock_timeout feels inco=
nsistent 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?

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao