Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > So, this is what needs to be dealt with to get it working.
> >
>
> More to the point, why is sub-second precision needed in this function?
> Connection timeout is given to us in whole seconds (1.205 code, i.e. prior to
> the patch in question):
>
> remains.tv_sec = atoi(conn->connect_timeout);
> if (!remains.tv_sec)
> {
> conn->status = CONNECTION_BAD;
> return 0;
> }
> remains.tv_usec = 0;
> rp = &remains;
>
> So there is no way to bail out prior to one second. Once you accept that the
> timeout is >= 1 second, and in whole second increments, why does it need
> sub-second resolution?
It could be argued that our seconds are not as exact as they could be
with subsecond timing. Not sure it is worth it, but I can see the
point. I would like to remove the tv_usec test because it suggests we
are doing something with microseconds when we are not. Also, should we
switch to a simple time() call, rather than gettimeofday()?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
