Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Good question. What is going to happen is that select() is going to be >>passed tv_sec = 1, and it is going to sleep for one second. Now, if >>select is interrupted, another time() call is going to be made. > > There is a very simple answer to this, which I think I suggested to Joe > originally, but it's not in the code now: the initial calculation of > finish_time = now() + timeout must add one. This ensures that any > roundoff error is in the conservative direction of timing out later, > rather than sooner.
Yes, my bad, I guess. The thing was that with the extra +1, I was repeatedly getting a wall-clock time of 2 seconds with a timeout set to 1 second. It seemed odd to have my 1 second timeout automatically turned into 2 seconds every time. With the current code, I tried a timeout of 1 second at least a 100 times and it always took about 1 full wall-clock second. But I guess if there is some corner case that needs it... Joe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
