| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Subject: | pg_sleep_enhancements.patch |
| Date: | 2014-01-29 19:04:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRABP5EkzV1L099M6ujJTVo0k6_0RufXZ2p_Lnpt_Vm7Ug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
I am looking on this patch
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/525FE206.6000502@dalibo.com
a) pg_sleep_for - no objection - it is simple and secure
b) pg_sleep_until
I am not sure - maybe this implementation is too simply. I see two possible
risk where it should not work as users can expect
a) what will be expected behave whem time is changed - CET/CEST ?
b) what will be expected behave when board clock is not accurate and it is
periodically fixed (by NTP) - isn't better to sleep only few seconds and
recalculate sleeping interval?
Regards
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christian Kruse | 2014-01-29 19:09:18 | Re: [PATCH] Use MAP_HUGETLB where supported (v3) |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2014-01-29 18:54:31 | FOREIGN KEY ... CONCURRENTLY |