From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 15:02:05 |
Message-ID: | 24412.1034780525@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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?
> I think we do need to properly compute the timeout on an EINTR of
> select() because if we don't, a 30 second timeout could become 90
> seconds if select() is interrupted. The other time() calls are needed,
> one above the loop, and one inside the loop.
AFAICS we need one time() call at the start, and then one inside the
select loop. I haven't looked at your recent patches, but you said
something about putting two calls in the loop; that seems like overkill.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-16 15:02:10 | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-16 15:01:33 | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |