None that I've heard of ... Sean? Tom, any way of writing a quite test C program for this? Something to 'simulate' the same thing, but without having to build the whole postmaster?
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Now that I recall, didn't you complain of something similar with a beta? > > > Yup ... and I bet its not reproducible yet again, is it? :) That would > > make for twice though, with v7.4, that I've come up with - results :) > > Well, it's not reproducibly negative, but it seems reproducibly wrong: > > Aggregate (cost=40168.96..40168.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual > time=49641.603..49641.611 rows=1 loops=1) > -> Seq Scan on ndict3 (cost=0.00..34560.57 rows=2243357 width=4) (actual > time=34.854..724754.474 rows=3570252 loops=1) > Total runtime: 49688.524 ms > > Aggregate (cost=40168.96..40168.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual > time=36625.013..36625.018 rows=1 loops=1) > -> Seq Scan on ndict3 (cost=0.00..34560.57 rows=2243357 width=4) (actual > time=0.128..-676113.173 rows=3572298 loops=1) > Total runtime: 36625.779 ms > > Aggregate (cost=40168.96..40168.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual > time=41380.881..41380.885 rows=1 loops=1) > -> Seq Scan on ndict3 (cost=0.00..34560.57 rows=2243357 width=4) (actual > time=0.091..718200.092 rows=3575264 loops=1) > Total runtime: 41381.504 ms > (3 rows) > > I'm wondering if there's an actual bug in gettimeofday() in this > platform, such that once in a while it returns a value that's off > a minute or so ... > > regards, tom lane > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
