Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:45:30 -0500
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)
Message-ID: <20210929174530.GK831@telsasoft.com>
References: 
 <CAMm1aWae1qaxQC+83VZd0NVpzO==n3cxMoqedZvU=TWpmo-uSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <202109291736.w3lzq4prep3p@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202109291736.w3lzq4prep3p@alvherre.pgsql>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210929174530.GK831%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

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