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. I think neither v3 nor v4 are viable patches. Greetings, Andres Freund
