On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 01:24:33AM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > > > > On 7 August 2015 at 14:24, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 09:00:44PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > > > * 2014-12-08 [519b075] Simon ..: Use GetSystemTimeAsFileTime > directly in > > win32 > > > 2014-12-08 [8001fe6] Simon ..: Windows: use > > GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime if .. > > > Timer resolution isn't a unimportant thing for people using > explain? > > > > This all seemed very internals-only, e.g.: > > > > On most Windows systems this change will actually have no > significant > > effect on > > timestamp resolution as the system timer tick is typically > between 1ms > > and 15ms > > depending on what timer resolution currently running > applications have > > requested. You can check this with clockres.exe from > sysinternals. > > Despite the > > platform limiation this change still permits capture of finer > > timestamps where > > the system is capable of producing them and it gets rid of an > > unnecessary > > syscall. > > > > Was I wrong? > > > > > > > > This does have a user visible change. Timestamps are now likely to have 6 > > digits after the decimal point, if they're on a version of windows which > > supports GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime(); > > > > Master: > > > > postgres=# select now(); > > now > > ------------------------------- > > 2015-08-09 01:14:01.959645+12 > > (1 row) > > > > 9.4.4 > > postgres=# select now(); > > now > > ---------------------------- > > 2015-08-09 01:15:09.783+12 > > (1 row) > > Yes, this was already in the release notes: > > Allow higher-precision timestamp resolution on <systemitem > class="osname">Windows 8</> or <systemitem class="osname">Windows > Server 2012</> and later Windows systems (Craig Ringer) > > I am not sure why people were saying it was missing. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + Everyone has their own god. + > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > Are we landing pg_tgrm 1.2 in pg 9.5? If yes (we should), up to an order of magnitude improvements is a worthy inclusion in the release notes. -- Arthur Silva
