| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Denis A Ustimenko <denis(at)oldham(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |
| Date: | 2002-10-14 13:53:27 |
| Message-ID: | 11923.1034603607@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Denis A Ustimenko <denis(at)oldham(dot)ru> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:59:40PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
>> 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).
> Actually we have the state machine in connectDBComplete() and the timeout is
> set for machine as the whole. Therefore if 1 second timeout is seted for the
> connectDBComplete() the timeout of particualr iteration of loop can be less
> then 1 second.
However, the code's been restructured so that we don't need to keep
track of the exact time spent in any one iteration. The error is only
on the overall delay. I agree with Joe that it's not worth the effort
needed (in the Win32 case) to make the timeout accurate to < 1 sec.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-14 14:49:05 | Re: Let's get 7.3 done |
| Previous Message | Alessio Bragadini | 2002-10-14 13:39:37 | Re: Changing Column Order (Was Re: MySQL vs PostgreSQL.) |