Tom Lane said:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>>> Won't this result in a call to pg_sleep with a long sleep time ending
>>> up sleeping noticeably longer than requested?
>
>> Looks like it to me.
>
> Something on the order of 1% longer, hm? (1 extra clock tick per
> second, probably.) Can't get excited about it --- *all*
> implementations of sleep say that the time is minimum not exact.
>
Well yes, although it's cumulative. I guess I'm not excited for a different
reason - I'm having trouble imagining much of a use case.
cheers
andrew
