On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:06 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
I'm not sure that really helps very much, honestly. I mean it would be useful in this particular case, but there are other cases where we have logic like this already, and this wouldn't do anything about those. For example, consider autoprewarm_main(). Like this code, that code thinks (perhaps just because I'm the one who reviewed it) that the next time should be measured from the last time ... but an enhancement to the timeout machinery wouldn't help it at all. I suspect there are other cases like this elsewhere, because this is what I personally tend to think is the right behavior and I feel like it comes up in patch reviews from time to time, but I'm not finding any at the moment. Even if I'm right that they exist, I'm not sure they look much like each other or can easily reuse any code. And then again on the other hand, BackgroundWriterMain() thinks that the next time should be measured from the time we got around to doing it, not the scheduled time. I guess we don't really have any consistent practice here. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
