| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: suppressing useless wakeups in logical/worker.c |
| Date: | 2023-01-26 20:23:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20230126202301.GA1703463@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 03:04:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I wonder if we should explicitly reject negative timestamps to eliminate
>> any chance of int64 overflow, too.
>
> Hmm. I'm disinclined to add an assumption that the epoch is in the past,
> but I take your point that the subtraction would overflow with
> TIMESTAMP_INFINITY and a negative finite timestamp. Maybe we should
> make use of pg_sub_s64_overflow()?
That would be my vote. I think the 'diff <= 0' check might need to be
replaced with something like 'start_time > stop_time' so that we return 0
for the underflow case.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Reid Thompson | 2023-01-26 20:27:20 | Re: Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be allocated to backends. |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2023-01-26 20:15:56 | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression |