MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CABPTF7WZ1yuYz8V=xsbghg8e7qaAm5MpyNw6BthWcbN7+P6biw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aeKqac6dHfCNoNxb@paquier.xyz>
In-Reply-To: <aeKqac6dHfCNoNxb@paquier.xyz>
From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 11:02:12 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAPpHfdsUsS6HVt3F-i+VCZEciqBY_HLZ28hbSoh=gwqXQdr=MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: test: avoid redundant standby catchup in 049_wait_for_lsn
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <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/CAPpHfdsUsS6HVt3F-i%2BVCZEciqBY_HLZ28hbSoh%3DgwqXQdr%3DMQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Michael!

On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 12:47=E2=80=AFAM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.x=
yz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 08:25:35PM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > The change preserves the same coverage while removing one redundant
> > replay catch-up on the delayed standby. It appears to reduce the test
> > runtime by about 7 seconds, though I have looked into why much of the
> > improvement comes from this change alone.
>
> Alexander may think differently and remove that, but I disagree.  The
> test is clearly written so as we want two wait checks to happen, for
> for CREATE FUNCTION, and one for CREATE PROCEDURE.  Removing the first
> check to keep only the second one removes its meaning.  In short, I
> see nothing wrong to deal with here.

Thank you for your observation.  The intention of this test is to
check explicit calls to WAIT FOR LSN.  Yes, wait_for_catchup() now
also internally calls WAIT FOR LSN.  But checking wait_for_catchup()
is not intention of this test, it's used in awfully a lot of other
places.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase