> On Apr 2, 2026, at 15:28, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 2, 2026, at 12:17, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chao,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 8:10 PM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This morning, as part of my usual routine, I synced the master branch and read through the recent commits. While
reading82c0cb4e672, I noticed a mistake in an error message. The relevant code is like:
>>> ```
>>> diff = INSTR_TIME_GET_NANOSEC(diff_time);
>>>
>>> fprintf(stderr, _("Time warp: %d ms\n"), diff);
>>> ```
>>>
>>> Here, “diff" is in nanoseconds, but the error message prints ms as the unit, which is incorrect.
>>
>> Good catch!
>>
>> It looks like the use of nanoseconds for "diff" got introduced last
>> year in 0b096e379e6f9bd49 (as you note later in the email, today's
>> commit didn't actually change that part), CCing Tom and Hannu as
>> authors of that earlier change.
>>
>> That said, its a bit odd that we were using INSTR_TIME_GET_MICROSEC
>> there before that earlier commit, but called it "ms" (i.e.
>> milliseconds) in the error message.
>>
>>>
>>> To fix that, I think there are two possible options:
>>>
>>> 1. Use INSTR_TIME_GET_MILLISEC to get “diff"
>>> 2. Change “ms" to “ns" in the error message
>>>
>>> After reading through the whole file, I think option 2 is the right fix. While doing that, I also noticed another
issue.
>>>
>>> “diff" is currently defined as int32. Although one might think that is enough for a time delta, I believe it should
beint64 for two reasons:
>>>
>>> * INSTR_TIME_GET_NANOSEC() explicitly returns int64:
>>> ```
>>> #define INSTR_TIME_GET_NANOSEC(t) \
>>> ((int64) (t).ticks)
>>> ```
>>>
>>> * The current code has a sanity check for backward clock drift:
>>> ```
>>> /* Did time go backwards? */
>>> if (unlikely(diff < 0))
>>> {
>>> fprintf(stderr, _("Detected clock going backwards in time.\n"));
>>> fprintf(stderr, _("Time warp: %d ms\n"), diff);
>>> exit(1);
>>> }
>>> ```
>>> Clock jumping forward is also possible, and a forward jump of about 2.14 seconds would overflow int32 when
expressedin nanoseconds, making the value appear negative. In that case, the code could report a “backwards” clock jump
whenthe actual jump was forwards, which would be misleading.
>>
>> I agree it doesn't seem sound to use an int32 for storing the result
>> of INSTR_TIME_GET_NANOSEC. It looks like we may also need to adjust
>> the call to pg_leftmost_one_pos32 though if we actually accept that
>> large a "diff" value, as in your patch.
>
> You are right. Changed to pg_leftmost_one_pos64 in v2.
>
>>
>> Maybe we should error out if the diff is larger than an int32, noting
>> a positive time drift?
>
> I agree we should warn/fail upon clock forwards drift. But I doubt int32 is too big (~2.14 seconds), I consider 1
secondcould be a too big threshold. Let’s wait for more voices on this.
>
>>
>> Independently of that, its worth noting we could easily emit the diff
>> in a larger unit (micro or milliseconds) for easier interpretation, by
>> just calling INSTR_TIME_GET_MICROSEC / INSTR_TIME_GET_MILLISEC on the
>> "diff_time" again.
>>
>
> Given the error should rarely happen, I personally feel that might not be super helpful. Also, if the drift is just
beyondthe threshold, bumping to microsecond or millisecond might print just 0.
>
> PFA v2 - updated 0002 for pg_leftmost_one_pos64.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Chao Li (Evan)
> HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
> https://www.highgo.com/
>
>
>
>
>
<v2-0001-pg_test_timing-fix-unit-in-backward-clock-warning.patch><v2-0002-pg_test_timing-use-int64-for-largest-observed-tim.patch>
PFA v3: Fixed a CI failure.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
