Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2

From: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2
Date: 2006-12-15 16:55:52
Message-ID: E1GvGLm-0000St-8t@elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
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 
> implementations
> > 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?

Ron Peacetree 


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-15 17:09:46
Subject: Re: Insertion to temp table deteriorating over time
Previous:From: RonDate: 2006-12-15 16:53:28
Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-12-15 17:01:23
Subject: Re: Security leak with trigger functions?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-15 16:54:56
Subject: pgsql: Put JST back into the default set of timezone abbreviations; was

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group