On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:36 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Why is it that we set the next timeout to fire not at "now + interval" > but at "when-it-should-have-fired-but-didn't + interval"? As a user, if > I request a message to be logged every N milliseconds, and one > of them is a little bit delayed, then (assuming I set it to 10s) I still > expect the next one to occur at now+10s. I don't expect the next at > "now+5s" if one is delayed 5s.
Well, this was my suggestion, because if you don't do this, you get drift, which I think looks weird. Like the timestamps will be: 13:41:05.012456 13:41:15.072484 13:41:25.149632 ...and it gets further and further off as it goes on.' I guess my expectation is different from yours: I expect that if I ask for a message every 10 seconds, the time between messages is going to be 10s, at least on average, not 10s + however much latency the system has. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com