None that I've heard of ... Sean?
Tom, any way of writing a quite test C program for this? Something to
'simulate' the same thing, but without having to build the whole
postmaster?
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Now that I recall, didn't you complain of something similar with a beta?
>
> > Yup ... and I bet its not reproducible yet again, is it? :) That would
> > make for twice though, with v7.4, that I've come up with - results :)
>
> Well, it's not reproducibly negative, but it seems reproducibly wrong:
>
> Aggregate (cost=40168.96..40168.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=49641.603..49641.611 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Seq Scan on ndict3 (cost=0.00..34560.57 rows=2243357 width=4) (actual time=34.854..724754.474 rows=3570252
loops=1)
> Total runtime: 49688.524 ms
>
> Aggregate (cost=40168.96..40168.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=36625.013..36625.018 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Seq Scan on ndict3 (cost=0.00..34560.57 rows=2243357 width=4) (actual time=0.128..-676113.173 rows=3572298
loops=1)
> Total runtime: 36625.779 ms
>
> Aggregate (cost=40168.96..40168.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=41380.881..41380.885 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Seq Scan on ndict3 (cost=0.00..34560.57 rows=2243357 width=4) (actual time=0.091..718200.092 rows=3575264
loops=1)
> Total runtime: 41381.504 ms
> (3 rows)
>
> I'm wondering if there's an actual bug in gettimeofday() in this
> platform, such that once in a while it returns a value that's off
> a minute or so ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
