From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Denis A Ustimenko <denis(at)oldham(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |
Date: | 2002-10-14 14:49:26 |
Message-ID: | 200210141449.g9EEnQi07497@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > It could be argued that our seconds are not as exact as they could be
> > with subsecond timing. Not sure it is worth it, but I can see the
> > point.
>
> Well, if we were specifying the timeout in microseconds instead of seconds, it
> would make sense to have better resolution. But when you can only specify the
> timeout in seconds, the internal time comparison doesn't need to be any more
> accurate than seconds (IMHO anyway).
>
> > are doing something with microseconds when we are not. Also, should we
> > switch to a simple time() call, rather than gettimeofday()?
> >
>
> Already done -- that's what Denis is unhappy about.
OK, I see that, but now, we are stuffing everything into a timeval
struct. Does that make sense? Shouldn't we just use time_t? I realize
we need the timeval struct for select() in pqWaitTimed, but we are
making a copy of the timeval we pass in anyway. Seems it would be easier
just making it a time_t.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-14 15:04:07 | Re: Changing Column Order (Was Re: MySQL vs PostgreSQL.) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-14 14:49:05 | Re: Let's get 7.3 done |