On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:36:14PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera 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. > > In other words, I think this function should just be > enable_timeout_after(STARTUP_PROGRESS_TIMEOUT, > log_startup_progress_interval); > > This means you can remove the scheduled_startup_progress_timeout > variable.
Robert requested the current behavior here. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYkS1ZeWdSMFMBecMNxWonHk6J5eoX4FEQrpKtvEbXqGQ%40mail.gmail.com It's confusing (at least) to get these kind of requests to change the behavior back and forth. -- Justin