Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Already done -- that's what Denis is unhappy about.
> OK, I see that, but now, we are stuffing everything into a timeval
> struct. Does that make sense? Shouldn't we just use time_t?
Yeah, the code could be simplified now. I'm also still not happy about
the question of whether it's safe to assume tv_sec is signed. I think
the running state should be just finish_time, and then inside the
loop when we are about to wait, we could do
current_time = time(NULL);if (current_time >= finish_time){ // failure exit}remains.tv_sec = finish_time -
current_time;remains.tv_usec= 0;// pass &remains to select...
regards, tom lane
