On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:14 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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