| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests |
| Date: | 2024-04-09 14:27:10 |
| Message-ID: | 3877dc14-9574-4ea1-bc1e-e496bf0c3fc7@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-04-09 Tu 09:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>> By the way, are you planning to do something like [1]? I've not
>> looked in details at the callers of IPC::Run::timeout, still the extra
>> debug output would be nice.
> It needs more review I think - I didn't check every call site to see
> if anything would be broken. I believe Andrew has undertaken a
> survey of all the timeout/timer calls, but if he doesn't produce
> anything I might have a go at it after awhile.
>
>
What I looked at so far was the use of is_expired, but when you look
into that you see that you need to delve further, to where timeout/timer
objects are created and passed around. I'll take a closer look when I
have done some incremental json housekeeping.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-04-09 14:30:07 | Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-09 13:46:10 | Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests |