Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Yes, the new code has _three_ time() calls, rather than the old code
> that I think only had two. I was going to mention it but I figured
> time() was a pretty light system call, sort of like getpid().
> I needed the additional time() calls so the computation of remaining
> time was more accurate, i.e. we are not resetting the timer on a
> select() EINTR anymore.
As long as the time() calls aren't invoked in the default no-timeout
case, I doubt that the small additional slowdown matters too much.
Still, one could ask why we are expending extra cycles to make the
timeout more accurate. Who the heck needs an accurate timeout on
connect? Can you really give a use-case where the user won't have
picked a number out of the air anyway?
regards, tom lane
