On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:42:18AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:29 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 06:31:52PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> On 21 December 2016 at 14:26, Andrew Borodin <boro...@octonica.com> wrote: > >> > >> > I'm not sure every platform supports microsecond sleeps > >> > >> Windows at least doesn't by default, unless that changed in Win2k12 > >> and Win8 with the same platform/kernel improvements that delivered > >> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh706895(v=vs.85).aspx . I'm > >> not sure. On older systems sleeps are 1ms to 15ms. > > > > Apparently, as of 2011, there were ways to do this. It's not crystal > > clear to me just how reliable they are. > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9116618/cpp-windows-is-there-a-sleep-function-in-microseconds > > This whole subthread seems like a distraction to me. I find it hard > to believe that this test case would be stable enough to survive the > buildfarm where, don't forget, we have things like > CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS machines where queries take 100x longer to run. > But even if it is, surely we can pick a less contrived test case. > So why worry about this?
I wasn't super worried about the actual sleep times, but I was having trouble puzzling out what the test was actually doing, so I rewrote it with what I thought of as more clarity. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers