| From: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? |
| Date: | 2024-07-03 05:43:19 |
| Message-ID: | 212C2E24-32CF-400E-982E-A446AB21E8CC@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 2 Jul 2024, at 22:20, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> It sure looks like this is exact-to-the-nanosecond results,
> since the modal values match the overall per-loop timing,
> and there are no zero measurements.
That’s a very interesting result, from the UUID POV!
If time is almost always advancing, using time readings instead of a counter is very reasonable: we have interprocess monotonicity almost for free.
Though time is advancing in a very small steps… RFC assumes that we use microseconds, I’m not sure it’s ok to use 10 more bits for nanoseconds…
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-07-03 05:57:50 | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-07-03 05:30:43 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |