On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:35:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... The main objection I see to this is that it replaces a kernel
> call that actually does some work with a kernel call to start a timer,
> plus possibly a later kernel call to actually do the work. Not clear
> that there's a win there.
And ofcourse it's an almost guarenteed loss on systems that don't
require a syscall to set the proc title.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
