Hi, Fujii Masao <[email protected]>, 13 Mar 2026 Cum, 13:36 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:42 AM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 9, 2026, at 22:12, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:03 PM Hüseyin Demir <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Fujii, > > >> > > >> Thanks for the patch. The rate-limiting approach makes sense to me. A > > >> couple of thoughts: > > >> > > >> 1) I think Chao Li's suggestion of using max(10s, deadlock_timeout) as > > >> the rate limit interval is worth adopting. If someone has set > > >> deadlock_timeout to, say, 30s or 60s, they've already signaled they > > >> don't need frequent lock-wait feedback. Logging every 10s after a 60s > > >> deadlock_timeout feels inconsistent with that intent. > > > > > > Or perhaps they expect the log message to be emitted only once, > > > just after deadlock_timeout, similar to the current behavior when > > > client_connection_check_interval is not set, I guess. > > > > > > I'm now starting thinking it might be better to preserve the existing > > > behavior (emitting the message once per wait) regardless of whether > > > client_connection_check_interval is set, and implement that first. > > > > > > If there is a need to emit the message periodically, we could add that > > > as a separate feature later so that it works independently of > > > the client_connection_check_interval setting. > > > > > > Thought? > > > > Yeah, IMHO, preserving the existing behavior is preferable. Logically, > > client_connection_check_interval and log_lock_waitsbelong to two different > > departments. Even though they cross paths at the implementation level > > today, having the behavior of log_lock_waits change just because > > client_connection_check_interval is adjusted seems surprising. > > So, attached is a patch that ensures the "still waiting on lock" message is > reported at most once during a lock wait, even if the wait is interrupted. >
The new v2 patch looks good to me. One open question from my side is should we include a test for this behaviour ? Because we mentioned adding a different GUC in the future to manage this rate-limiting approach. It can be useful in the future once we consider/re-visit this approach. If the tests and other future ideas can be developed later together we can consider adding tests later. Thanks for the patch again! Regards.
