| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Timing overhead and Linux clock sources |
| Date: | 2012-08-27 20:42:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYgf1SX-Ersz2bw0N-uKRcerkYoYNk=+R6iwxNPD2OHUQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> He wrote it that way to allow for simpler C code --- he could just start
> from 31 and keeping skipping entries until he hit a non-zero.
>
> My format makes it easy to see which line should have the majority of
> the entries, e.g. first line should be > 90%. I doubt there are enough
> people running this cross-version that consistency in output makes any
> difference between major PG versions.
I don't see why it's better for the first line to have a big number
than the last line. What difference does it make?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2012-08-27 20:48:06 | PGDay Ecuador 2012: Call for papers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-27 20:40:21 | Re: archive_keepalive_command |