| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_sleep_enhancements.patch |
| Date: | 2014-01-29 19:14:46 |
| Message-ID: | 52E95326.9050403@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/29/2014 08:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am looking on this patch
Thank you for looking at it.
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/525FE206.6000502@dalibo.com
>
> a) pg_sleep_for - no objection - it is simple and secure
Okay.
> b) pg_sleep_until
>
> I am not sure - maybe this implementation is too simply. I see two
> possible risk where it should not work as users can expect
>
> a) what will be expected behave whem time is changed - CET/CEST ?
There is no risk there, the wake up time is specified with time zone.
> b) what will be expected behave when board clock is not accurate and
> it is periodically fixed (by NTP) - isn't better to sleep only few
> seconds and recalculate sleeping interval?
We could do that, but it seems like overkill. It would mean writing a
new C function whereas this is just a simple helper for the existing
pg_sleep() function. So my vote is to keep the patch as-is.
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christian Kruse | 2014-01-29 19:18:11 | Re: [PATCH] Use MAP_HUGETLB where supported (v3) |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-01-29 19:09:52 | Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement |