Conceptually they are not scheduling a function to be run after a month, but scheduling it to run twice per second as long as the process is running. When the process is still running a month later, it is very unexpected that the scheduling would suddenly stop.
back
1 comments
My bad, perhaps because of the original (or confusing) post title earlier. A scheduling process that stops after 25 days is indeed a more realistic bug than a function planned for execution in 25 days not being called.