Horton

Re: Improve the granularity of PQsocketPoll's timeout parameter?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Tristan Partin <tristan@partin.io>, Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-06-12T19:29:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 3:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So how about one of
>> 	pg_usec_time_t
>> 	pg_time_t_usec
>> ?

> The former seems better to me, since having _t not at the end does not
> seem too intuitive.

True.  We can guess about how POSIX might spell this if they ever
invent the concept, but one choice they certainly would not make
is time_t_usec.

v3 attached uses pg_usec_time_t, and fixes one brown-paper-bag
bug the cfbot noticed in v2.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Improve the granularity of PQsocketPoll's timeout parameter.