Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Sep-29, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, this was my suggestion, because if you don't do this, you get
>> drift, which I think looks weird. Like the timestamps will be:
>>
>> 13:41:05.012456
>> 13:41:15.072484
>> 13:41:25.149632
>>
>> ...and it gets further and further off as it goes on.'
> Right ... I actually *expect* this drift to occur. Maybe people
> generally don't like this, it just seems natural to me. Are there other
> opinions on this aspect?
FWIW, I agree with Robert that it's nicer if the timeout doesn't drift.
There's a limit to how much complexity I'm willing to tolerate for that,
but it doesn't seem like this exceeds it.
The real comment I'd have here, though, is that writing one-off
code for this purpose is bad. If we have a need for a repetitive
timeout, it'd be better to add the feature to timeout.c explicitly.
That would probably also remove the need for extra copies of the
timeout time.
regards, tom lane
