Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> 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 didn't claim there are any other places that could use the feature
*today*. But once we've got one, it seems like there could be more
tomorrow. In any case, I dislike keeping timeout state data outside
timeout.c, because it's so likely to get out-of-sync that way.
regards, tom lane
