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: | 2002-10-16 15:01:33 |
Message-ID: | 200210161501.g9GF1Xs25718@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:
> > Yes, the new code has _three_ time() calls, rather than the old code
> > that I think only had two. I was going to mention it but I figured
> > time() was a pretty light system call, sort of like getpid().
> > I needed the additional time() calls so the computation of remaining
> > time was more accurate, i.e. we are not resetting the timer on a
> > select() EINTR anymore.
>
> As long as the time() calls aren't invoked in the default no-timeout
> case, I doubt that the small additional slowdown matters too much.
> Still, one could ask why we are expending extra cycles to make the
> timeout more accurate. Who the heck needs an accurate timeout on
> connect? Can you really give a use-case where the user won't have
> picked a number out of the air anyway?
Yes, the default no-timeout case makes no time() calls.
--
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 | 2002-10-16 15:02:05 | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-16 14:56:31 | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |