From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Denis A Ustimenko <denis(at)oldham(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |
Date: | 2002-10-14 15:19:45 |
Message-ID: | 12656.1034608785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Already done -- that's what Denis is unhappy about.
> OK, I see that, but now, we are stuffing everything into a timeval
> struct. Does that make sense? Shouldn't we just use time_t?
Yeah, the code could be simplified now. I'm also still not happy about
the question of whether it's safe to assume tv_sec is signed. I think
the running state should be just finish_time, and then inside the
loop when we are about to wait, we could do
current_time = time(NULL);
if (current_time >= finish_time)
{
// failure exit
}
remains.tv_sec = finish_time - current_time;
remains.tv_usec = 0;
// pass &remains to select...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jochen Westland | 2002-10-14 15:40:56 | Default setting of NAMEDATALEN |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-10-14 15:15:59 | Re: Changing Column Order (Was Re: MySQL vs PostgreSQL.) |