Hi Alexander, On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 9:54 PM Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
While working on other things, I revisited the thread and looked into the issue. The delayed investigation has exposed an unexpected fragility. I'll post some findings soon. -- Regards, Xuneng Zhou HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
