Hi, Michael! On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 12:47 AM Michael Paquier <[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 your observation. The intention of this test is to check explicit calls to WAIT FOR LSN. Yes, wait_for_catchup() now also internally calls WAIT FOR LSN. But checking wait_for_catchup() is not intention of this test, it's used in awfully a lot of other places. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
