On 2025/07/02 23:04, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-07-02 22:55:16 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On 2025/06/24 1:32, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
>>> 3. The proposed solution
>>>
>>> If the above analysis is sound, one potential fix would be to add
>>> separate branching for standby in XactLockTableWait. However, this seems
>>> inconsistent with the function's definition—there's simply no lock entry
>>> in the lock table for waiting. We could implement a new function for
>>> this logic,
>>
>> To be honest, I'm fine with v3, since it only increases the sleep time
>> after 5000 loop iterations, which has negligible performance impact.
>
> I think this is completely the wrong direction. We should make
> XactLockTableWait() on standbys, not make the polling smarter.
On standby, XactLockTableWait() can enter a busy loop with 1ms sleeps.
But are you suggesting that this doesn't need to be addressed?
Or do you have another idea for how to handle it?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
