Bummer… I didn’t presume to suggest an api before, but simply adding an extra int with the milliseconds offset from the time_t is simple, and trivial to plug into the implementation I saw. Callers who don’t care can simply pass zero. while I could pass a computed time_t and ms offset using <chrono>. No need for fancy types imho. Aren’t betas precisely for the purpose of exposing apis to those like myself to vet them? This is also beta1, I,e, the first one. My €0.02
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 6:18 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com> writes: > > PQsocketPoll() being based on time_t, it has only second resolution, > AFAIK. > > Despite the [underlying implementation in fe-misc.c][2] supporting at > > least milliseconds. > > ... > > But I think it would a pity if that unreleased API couldn't be made to > > accomodate sub-second timeouts and more use-cases, like above. > > Especially given that libpq v17 isn't out yet. I may come late to the > > game, but hopefully it is not too late. > > This is an interesting suggestion, but I think yes it's too late. > We're already past beta1 and this'd require some fairly fundamental > rethinking, since there's no easy substitute for type time_t that has > millisecond resolution. (The callers do want to specify an end time > not a timeout interval, since some of them loop around PQsocketPoll > and don't want the end time to slip.) > > I guess conceivably we could use gettimeofday() and struct timeval > instead of time() and time_t, but it'd touch a lot of places in > libpq and it'd make some of the calculations a lot more complex. > > Maybe a better idea would be to convert to using our > src/include/portability/instr_time.h abstraction? But that > would be problematic for outside callers. > > In any case this doesn't seem like a sane thing to be redesigning > post-beta. A few months ago maybe we'd have done it, but ... > > regards, tom lane >
