> On Feb 5, 2026, at 08:33, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 5:19 PM Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 10:27 PM Fujii Masao
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I've attached the rebased patches.
>>
>> Attached are the rebased versions of the patches.
>
> I've rebased the patches again.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
> <v4-0001-Make-GUC-wal_receiver_timeout-user-settable.patch><v4-0002-Add-per-subscription-wal_receiver_timeout-setting.patch>
Hi Fujii-san,
I applied the patch locally and played with it a bit. In short, it adds a new
subscription option that allows overriding the GUC wal_receiver_timeout for a
subscription’s apply worker. The changes look solid overall, and the new option
worked as expected in my manual testing.
I have only one small comment:
```
+ /*
+ * Test if the given value is valid for
wal_receiver_timeeout GUC.
+ * Skip this test if the value is -1, since -1 is
allowed for the
+ * wal_receiver_timeout subscription option, but not
for the GUC
+ * itself.
+ */
+ parsed = parse_int(opts->wal_receiver_timeout, &val, 0,
NULL);
+ if (!parsed || val != -1)
+ (void)
set_config_option("wal_receiver_timeout", opts->wal_receiver_timeout,
+
PGC_BACKEND, PGC_S_TEST, GUC_ACTION_SET,
+
false, 0, false);
```
Here, parse_int() is also from GUC, with flag 0, it will reject any value with
units such as “1s” or “7d”. So in practice, the only purpose of calling
parse_int() here is to detect the special value “-1”.
Given that, I think using atoi() directly may be simpler and easier to read.
For example:
```
if (atoi(opts->wal_receiver_timeout) != -1)
/* if value is not -1, then test if the given value is valid for
wal_receiver_timeeout GUC.
(void) set_config_option("wal_receiver_timeout",
opts->wal_receiver_timeout,
PGC_BACKEND, PGC_S_TEST, GUC_ACTION_SET,
false, 0, false);
```
I tried this locally and `make check` still passed.
Similarly, later in set_wal_receiver_timeout(), MySubscription->walrcvtimeout
has already been validated, so we could also use atoi() there instead of
parse_int().
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
