Tom Lane said:
> 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.

Well yes, although it's cumulative. I guess I'm not excited for a different
reason - I'm having trouble imagining much of a use case.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to