Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Date
Msg-id 1261896.1655487829@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I should have been more precise - what I meant was a timeout.c API that allows
> the caller to pass in "now", which in this case we'd get from
> GetCurrentTransactionStopTimestamp(), which would avoid the additional
> timestamp computation.

I don't care for that one bit: it makes the accuracy of all timeouts
dependent on how careful that caller is to provide an up-to-date "now".
In the example at hand, there is WAY too much code between
SetCurrentTransactionStopTimestamp() and the timer arming to make me
think the results will be acceptable.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Next
From: Josh Soref
Date:
Subject: Re: SGML doc file references