So, I've wondered about this part all along:
> +/*
> + * Calculates the timestamp at which the next timer should expire and enables
> + * the timer accordingly.
> + */
> +static void
> +reset_startup_progress_timeout(TimestampTz now)
> +{
> + TimestampTz next_timeout;
> +
> + next_timeout = TimestampTzPlusMilliseconds(scheduled_startup_progress_timeout,
> + log_startup_progress_interval);
> + if (next_timeout < now)
> + {
> + /*
> + * Either the timeout was processed so late that we missed an
> + * entire cycle or system clock was set backwards.
> + */
> + next_timeout = TimestampTzPlusMilliseconds(now, log_startup_progress_interval);
> + }
> +
> + enable_timeout_at(STARTUP_PROGRESS_TIMEOUT, next_timeout);
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.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No hay ausente sin culpa ni presente sin disculpa" (Prov. francés)
