Re: client_connection_check_interval default value

> On Mar 13, 2026, at 20:36, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:42 AM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 9, 2026, at 22:12, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:03 PM Hüseyin Demir <huseyin.d3r@gmail.com> 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/