> On Mar 13, 2026, at 20:36, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
> <v2-0001-Ensure-still-waiting-on-lock-message-is-logged-on.patch>
V2 overall looks good to me.
A small comment is about the variable name logged_lock_waits that sounds like
“count of waits”, I would suggest “lock_wait_logged”. But I see that the name
follows the naming convention of the existing variable
logged_recovery_conflict, so maybe just rename to logged_lock_wait (remove the
“s”).
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
