Re: client_connection_check_interval default value
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>, Jacob Champion
<jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org"
<pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Marat Buharov
<marat.buharov@gmail.com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>,
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Date: 2026-02-18T08:03:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2026-02-18 at 14:30 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 9:01 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > The issue is that backends blocked in ProcSleep() are woken up every > > > client_connection_check_interval and may emit a "still waiting" message > > > each time if log_lock_waits is enabled. To mitigate this, just one idea is > > > to add a flag to track whether the "still waiting" message has already been > > > emitted during a call to ProcSleep(), and suppress further messages > > > once it has been logged. > > > > Independently of what's the default, it seems like it'd be valuable to > > make that interaction better. I think it is reasonable to keep on > > emitting "still waiting" every so often, but we could probably > > rate-limit that to a lot less than every 2 seconds. > > Attached is a patch that rate-limits the "still waiting on lock" message > to at most once every 10s. > > I chose 10s instead of the suggested 2s, since 2s felt too short. But we can > discuss the appropriate interval and adjust it if needed. The value is > currently hard-coded, as making it configurable does not seem necessary. I think that 10 seconds is good. Yours, Laurenz Albe
Commits
-
Add TAP tests for log_lock_waits
- ca2b5443e2dc 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add tests for lock statistics, take two
- 557a9f1e3e62 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Ensure "still waiting on lock" message is logged only once per wait.
- fd6ecbfa75ff 19 (unreleased) landed