On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 10:58 AM Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 7:20 AM Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]> 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 the review. I agree that the two wait checks serve distinct > > purposes and are not redundant. The main motivation for this patch was > > efficiency. In my testing, the new test added approximately 7 seconds to > > the runtime, while the creation of the procedure and function completed > > quickly. I suspect the latency stems from the wait-for-catch-up step. When > > I removed it, the test runtime dropped by about 7 seconds.I haven't yet > > investigated why the wait is so costly in this case. I should probably look > > into that before proposing this change. > > On my laptop the time needed to run t/049_wait_for_lsn.pl also drops > from 20 secs to 12 secs. The influence to the runtime of the whole > test suite in parallel would be not that big as CPU time only drops > from 2.16 sec to 2.07 sec. But anyway that's pretty significant. > I've revised comment message a bit and surrounding comments. I'm > going to push this if no objections.
Pushed. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
