Re: pg_background contrib module proposal

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:42:18AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:29 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 06:31:52PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> On 21 December 2016 at 14:26, Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm not sure every platform supports microsecond sleeps
> >>
> >> Windows at least doesn't by default, unless that changed in Win2k12
> >> and Win8 with the same platform/kernel improvements that delivered
> >> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh706895(v=vs.85).aspx . I'm
> >> not sure. On older systems sleeps are 1ms to 15ms.
> >
> > Apparently, as of 2011, there were ways to do this. It's not crystal
> > clear to me just how reliable they are.
> >
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9116618/cpp-windows-is-there-a-sleep-function-in-microseconds
>
> This whole subthread seems like a distraction to me. I find it hard
> to believe that this test case would be stable enough to survive the
> buildfarm where, don't forget, we have things like
> CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS machines where queries take 100x longer to run.
> But even if it is, surely we can pick a less contrived test case.
> So why worry about this?

I wasn't super worried about the actual sleep times, but I was having
trouble puzzling out what the test was actually doing, so I rewrote it
with what I thought of as more clarity.

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate