At 10:45 AM 12/15/2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > There are various attempts at providing better timing infrastructure at low
> > overhead but I'm not sure what's out there currently. I expect to
> do this what
> > we'll have to do is invent a pg_* abstraction that has various
> > on different architectures.
>You've got to be kidding. Surely it's glibc's responsibility, not ours,
>to implement gettimeofday correctly for the hardware.
> regards, tom lane
I agree with Tom on this. Perhaps the best compromise is for the pg
community to make thoughtful suggestions to the glibc community?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-15 17:09:46|
|Subject: Re: Insertion to temp table deteriorating over time |
|Previous:||From: Ron||Date: 2006-12-15 16:53:28|
|Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2006-12-15 17:01:23|
|Subject: Re: Security leak with trigger functions?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-15 16:54:56|
|Subject: pgsql: Put JST back into the default set of timezone abbreviations; was |