Re: Restart pg_usleep when interrupted

> I did a few tests with the patch and did not see any "large" drifts like the
> ones observed above.

Thanks for testing.

> I think it could be "simplified" by making use of instr_time instead of timespec
> for current and absolute. Then I think it would be enough to compare their
> ticks.

Correct I attached a v2 of this patch that uses instr_time to check the elapsed
time and break out of the loop. It needs some more benchmarking.

>> Since sub-millisecond sleep times are not guaranteed as suggested by
>> the vacuum_cost_delay docs ( see below ), an alternative idea
>> is to use clock_nanosleep for vacuum delay when it’s available, else
>> fallback to WaitLatch.
>
> Wouldn't that increase even more the cases where sub-millisecond won't be
> guaranteed?

Yes, nanosleep is going to provide the most coverage as it’s widely available.

Regards,

Sami