Hi,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 05:15:27PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 04:36:04AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> >> So, we're back to what we were discussing before the split. As in v7, 0003 is
> >> adding the new GUC. So that we can see what having a new GUC implies in ProcSleep()
> >> and we can just get rid of 0003 if we think the GUC is not worth the extra complexity
> >> (I don't have a strong opinion on it but tempted to think that the extra GUC is
> >> not worth it).
> >
> > PFA, a rebase due to fd6ecbfa75ff.
>
> Looking again at this patch, all the fields that you are adding are in
> non-critical paths, so it looks fine by me to begin with this data
> set.
Thanks for looking at it!
> We may want to document that for future readers of the code to
> not add counter increments in the fast code paths, where performance
> could matter.
Yeah, added a few words in the callers and on top of the function definitions.
> Let's also drop 0003 with the GUC. log_lock_waits is enabled by
> default and we are in a wait path which would not be
> performance-critical.
Yeah, that was also my vote.
> Regarding the isolation test, the new permutations add 4 pg_sleep()
> calls at 500ms each, making the stats test longer. It also looks like
> the outputs are the same for the two alternate expected files? Do you
> think that it could be possible to move these tests to a new file,
> perhaps cutting a bit the sleeps to make it faster?
This is done that way in the attached, so that we don't need the extra output in
the _1.out file and the test time is reduced (since the deadlock timeout is set
to 10ms in the test, I changed the sleep time to 50ms (I did not want to be very
close to 10ms)).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
