Re: pg_sleep_enhancements.patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vik Fearing
Subject Re: pg_sleep_enhancements.patch
Date
Msg-id 52E95326.9050403@dalibo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_sleep_enhancements.patch  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_sleep_enhancements.patch  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 01/29/2014 08:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am looking on this patch

Thank you for looking at it.

> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/525FE206.6000502@dalibo.com
>
> a) pg_sleep_for - no objection - it is simple and secure

Okay.

> b) pg_sleep_until
>
> I am not sure - maybe this implementation is too simply. I see two
> possible risk where it should not work as users can expect
>
> a) what will be expected behave whem time is changed - CET/CEST ?

There is no risk there, the wake up time is specified with time zone.

> b) what will be expected behave when board clock is not accurate and
> it is periodically fixed (by NTP) - isn't better to sleep only few
> seconds and recalculate sleeping interval?

We could do that, but it seems like overkill.  It would mean writing a
new C function whereas this is just a simple helper for the existing
pg_sleep() function.  So my vote is to keep the patch as-is.

-- 
Vik




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement
Next
From: Christian Kruse
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use MAP_HUGETLB where supported (v3)