From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Denis A Ustimenko <denis(at)oldham(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |
Date: | 2002-10-14 15:58:27 |
Message-ID: | 200210141558.g9EFwRw15251@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Already done -- that's what Denis is unhappy about.
>
> > OK, I see that, but now, we are stuffing everything into a timeval
> > struct. Does that make sense? Shouldn't we just use time_t?
>
> Yeah, the code could be simplified now. I'm also still not happy about
> the question of whether it's safe to assume tv_sec is signed. I think
> the running state should be just finish_time, and then inside the
> loop when we are about to wait, we could do
>
> current_time = time(NULL);
> if (current_time >= finish_time)
> {
> // failure exit
> }
> remains.tv_sec = finish_time - current_time;
> remains.tv_usec = 0;
> // pass &remains to select...
That whole remains structure should be a time_t variable, and then we
_know_ we can't assume it is signed. The use of timeval should
happen only in pqWaitTimed because it has to use select().
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-14 16:10:15 | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |
Previous Message | Jochen Westland | 2002-10-14 15:40:56 | Default setting of NAMEDATALEN |