From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_arch.c call to sleep() |
Date: | 2004-11-07 20:01:14 |
Message-ID: | 418E7F0A.7050908@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>We have the following warning on Windows:
>>pgarch.c:349: warning: implicit declaration of function `sleep'
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>To fix it we could include the right header (which appears to be
>><stdlib.h> in the Windows/Mingw case), or we could replace the call by a
>>call to pg_usleep().
>>
>>
>
><stdlib.h> is included automatically by c.h, so that surely won't fix it.
>
>
Now I look closer I see that it declares _sleep() rather than sleep().
>I have some recollection that we invented pg_usleep in part because we
>wanted to not use sleep() at all in the backend, but I don't recall why
>(and the reasoning might not apply to the archiver process, anyway).
>
>
>
>
I thought we invented pg_usleep so we could remove the calls to
select(0,NULL,NULL,NULL,timeout) which don't work on Windows.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-07 20:13:32 | Re: cygwin build failure |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-07 19:31:15 | Re: Memory Context problems... |