From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TODO-item: Add sleep() function, remove from regress.c |
Date: | 2006-01-10 14:58:26 |
Message-ID: | 29474.1136905106@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:50:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The proposed regression test seems unacceptably fragile, as well as
>> rather pointless.
> Why is it fragile?
As your own comment pointed out, the test would "fail" on a heavily
loaded system, due to sleeping too long. I do not see the need for
such a test anyway --- the stats regression test will exercise the
code sufficiently.
>> BTW, a serious problem with just passing it off to pg_usleep like that
>> is that the sleep can't be aborted by a cancel request
> No, cancelling the sleep works (at least for Unix). Isn't cancelling
> implemented via a signal that interrupts select() ?
On some systems the signal will interrupt select. On some, not.
Note the coding in bgwriter.c's main loop for instance.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-01-10 20:51:49 | Re: Question about Postgresql time fields(possible bug) |
Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-01-10 10:31:13 | Re: TODO-item: Add sleep() function, remove from regress.c |