Tom, excuse me, I forget to copy previous posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:53:27AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Denis A Ustimenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:59:40PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> >> 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).
> > Actually we have the state machine in connectDBComplete() and the timeout is
> > set for machine as the whole. Therefore if 1 second timeout is seted for the
> > connectDBComplete() the timeout of particualr iteration of loop can be less
> > then 1 second. 
> However, the code's been restructured so that we don't need to keep
> track of the exact time spent in any one iteration.  The error is only
> on the overall delay.  I agree with Joe that it's not worth the effort
> needed (in the Win32 case) to make the timeout accurate to < 1 sec.

Beware of almost 1 second posiible error. For example: connect_timeout == 1,
we start at 0.999999 then finish_time == 1. If CPU is quite busy we will
do only one iteration. I don't know is it enough to make connection?
True timeout in this case == 0.000001


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

Reply via email to