| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | constzl <const_sunny(at)126(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds? |
| Date: | 2021-08-26 14:07:12 |
| Message-ID: | 648775.1629986832@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>> On 26 Aug 2021, at 09:38, constzl <const_sunny(at)126(dot)com> wrote:
>> if ((worker->bgw_restart_time < 0 &&
>> worker->bgw_restart_time != BGW_NEVER_RESTART) ||
>> (worker->bgw_restart_time > USECS_PER_DAY / 1000))
> My reading of the above code is that is tries to catch nonsensical values, not
> to cap it to enforce restarts within a 24h period.
This may be intended to guard against integer overflows later (he guesses
without having read the code).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-26 14:11:22 | Re: BUG #17162: order by clause is not pushed down to foreign scans when a WHERE clause is given in query |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-08-26 14:04:03 | Re: BUG #17157: authorizaiton of dict_int and bloom extention |