Hi, Michael!
On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 12:47 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> 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
