Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Still, one could ask why we are expending extra cycles to make the
>> timeout more accurate. Who the heck needs an accurate timeout on
>> connect? Can you really give a use-case where the user won't have
>> picked a number out of the air anyway?
> I think we do need to properly compute the timeout on an EINTR of
> select() because if we don't, a 30 second timeout could become 90
> seconds if select() is interrupted. The other time() calls are needed,
> one above the loop, and one inside the loop.
AFAICS we need one time() call at the start, and then one inside the
select loop. I haven't looked at your recent patches, but you said
something about putting two calls in the loop; that seems like overkill.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
