From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Microsecond sleeps with select() |
Date: | 2001-02-18 00:28:16 |
Message-ID: | 6862.982456096@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> Certainly there are machines and kernels that count time more precisely
> (isn't PG ported to QNX?). We do users of such kernels no favors by
> pretending they only count clock ticks. Furthermore, a 1ms clock
> tick is pretty common, e.g. on Alpha boxes.
Okay, I didn't know there were any popular systems that did that.
> This argues for yielding the minimum discernable amount of time (1us)
> and then backing off to a less-minimal time (1ms).
Fair enough. As you say, it's the same result on machines with coarse
time resolution, and it should help on smarter boxes. The main thing
is that I want to change the zero entries in s_spincycle, which
clearly aren't doing what the author intended.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-18 00:34:22 | Re: Re: WAL and commit_delay |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-18 00:21:43 | Re: Linux 2.2 vs 2.4 |