From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam ( xact.c xlog.c) |
Date: | 2000-11-16 20:12:58 |
Message-ID: | 20001116121258.L830@fw.wintelcom.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> [001116 12:09] wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> [001116 14:02]:
> > > > This sounds like an interesting approach, yes.
> > > Question: Is sleep(0) guaranteed to at least give up control?
> > >
> > > The way I read my UnixWare 7's man page, it might not, since alarm(0)
> > > just cancels the alarm...
> >
> > Well, it certainly is a kernel call, and most OS's re-evaluate on kernel
> > call return.
> BUT, do we know for sure that sleep(0) is not optimized in the library
> to just return?
sleep(3) should conform to POSIX specification, if anyone has the
reference they can check it to see what the effect of sleep(0)
should be.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-11-16 20:27:29 | Re: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam ( xact.c xlog.c) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-11-16 20:11:50 | Re: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam ( xact.c xlog.c) |