Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> Won't this result in a call to pg_sleep with a long sleep time ending up
>> sleeping noticeably longer than requested?
> Looks like it to me.
Something on the order of 1% longer, hm? (1 extra clock tick per second,
probably.) Can't get excited about it --- *all* implementations of sleep
say that the time is minimum not exact.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
