Re: [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API
Date
Msg-id 5449E6BB.3020001@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/23/2014 09:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Agreed - I think if you want an error check here it should use elog()
> or ereport(), not Assert().

That's what I originally did, but it's too early for elog.

I'm reluctant to just fprintf(...) to stderr, as there's no way for the
user to suppress that, and it'll be emitted for each backend start.
Though on the other hand it really is a "shouldn't happen" case.

So the options seem to be ignoring the error silently or printing to stderr.

-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Getting rid of "accept incoming network connections" prompts on OS X
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: inherit support for foreign tables