Joe Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > 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. > > Well, if we were specifying the timeout in microseconds instead of seconds, it > would make sense to have better resolution. But when you can only specify the > timeout in seconds, the internal time comparison doesn't need to be any more > accurate than seconds (IMHO anyway). > > > are doing something with microseconds when we are not. Also, should we > > switch to a simple time() call, rather than gettimeofday()? > > > > 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? I realize we need the timeval struct for select() in pqWaitTimed, but we are making a copy of the timeval we pass in anyway. Seems it would be easier just making it a time_t. -- 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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
