Hi Michael,
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. Best, Xuneng >
