Hi,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 04:45:31PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 09:12:18PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > With this setup, the following messages were logged once per second:
> >
> > LOG: process 72199 still waiting for ShareLock on transaction 771
> > after 63034.119 ms
> > DETAIL: Process holding the lock: 72190. Wait queue: 72199.
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> I see, the WaitLatch() in ProcSleep() is "woken up" every 1s due to the
> enable_timeout_after(ANYTIME_STATS_UPDATE_TIMEOUT,...) being set unconditionally
> in ProcessInterrupts(). We need to be more restrictive as to when to enable the
> timeout, I'll fix in the next version.
The attached, to apply on top of 0001, fix the issue. However it handles only the
WaitLatch in ProcSleep() case and I start to have concern about the others WaitLatch()
that would/could be "woken up" every 1s.
Using disable_timeout() and enable_timeout_after() in WaitEventSetWait() does not
look like a great answer to this concern, so I wonder if we should use a larger
flush frequency instead (as proposed up-thread), thoughts?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
