On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 6:21 PM Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
Thanks for pushing it. I haven't had time to investigate the latency yet, but will do it later. Best, Xuneng
