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