From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TODO-item: Add sleep() function, remove from regress.c |
Date: | 2006-01-11 04:14:46 |
Message-ID: | 3645.24.211.165.134.1136952886.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane said:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>>> Won't this result in a call to pg_sleep with a long sleep time ending
>>> up sleeping noticeably longer than requested?
>
>> Looks like it to me.
>
> Something on the order of 1% longer, hm? (1 extra clock tick per
> second, probably.) Can't get excited about it --- *all*
> implementations of sleep say that the time is minimum not exact.
>
Well yes, although it's cumulative. I guess I'm not excited for a different
reason - I'm having trouble imagining much of a use case.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-11 05:08:45 | Re: Is Optimizer smart enough? |
Previous Message | Tony Caduto | 2006-01-11 03:52:20 | Re: Question about Postgresql time fields(possible bug) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2006-01-11 19:46:02 | mbutils.c memory cxt cleanup |
Previous Message | Tony Caduto | 2006-01-11 03:52:20 | Re: Question about Postgresql time fields(possible bug) |