| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: suppressing useless wakeups in logical/worker.c |
| Date: | 2023-01-26 00:33:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20230126003319.GA1507251@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:23:41PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Can we also use TimestampDifferenceMilliseconds()? It knows about
> rounding up for WaitLatch().
I think we might risk overflowing "long" when all the wakeup times are
DT_NOEND:
* This is typically used to calculate a wait timeout for WaitLatch()
* or a related function. The choice of "long" as the result type
* is to harmonize with that. It is caller's responsibility that the
* input timestamps not be so far apart as to risk overflow of "long"
* (which'd happen at about 25 days on machines with 32-bit "long").
Maybe we can adjust that function or create a new one to deal with this.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-26 00:43:47 | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-26 00:23:41 | Re: suppressing useless wakeups in logical/worker.c |