> On Feb 13, 2026, at 23:51, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 2:03 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
>
>> 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 we use atoi(), a command like CREATE SUBSCRIPTION with an invalid
> wal_receiver_timeout value such as '-1invalid' would succeed, since atoi()
> interprets it as -1. I don't think that's desirable behavior. So it would be
> better to use parse_int() so that such invalid input is properly rejected.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
I realized atoi(“-1invalid”) would return -1, but I thought that would be an
imagined use case. I’m fine if you insist to use parse_int. Maybe we can
enhance the comment. set_config_option does the test and parse_int is used to
skip -1.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
