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