| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enable_timeout_every() and fin_time |
| Date: | 2023-01-03 20:30:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZvsehoTLyOodQeFvQsW85Yg_Rt3LSzXksYW_15oQs6Zw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:14 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Doesn't that discrepancy already exist as the code stands, because
> startup_progress_phase_start_time is also set in
> has_startup_progress_timeout_expired()?
I don't think it is, actually.
> I realize that was an example, but the
> issue seems broader: After the first "firing", the next timeout will be
> computed relative to an absolute time gathered in timestamp.c.
We're computing the time since the start of the current phase, not the
time since the last timeout. So I don't see how this is relevant.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brar Piening | 2023-01-03 20:35:09 | Re: doc: add missing "id" attributes to extension packaging page |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-03 20:30:11 | Why are we using blocking libpq in the backend? |