Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > It could be argued that our seconds are not as exact as they could be
> > with subsecond timing. Not sure it is worth it, but I can see the
> > point.
>
> Well, if we were specifying the timeout in microseconds instead of seconds, it
> would make sense to have better resolution. But when you can only specify the
> timeout in seconds, the internal time comparison doesn't need to be any more
> accurate than seconds (IMHO anyway).
>
> > are doing something with microseconds when we are not. Also, should we
> > switch to a simple time() call, rather than gettimeofday()?
> >
>
> Already done -- that's what Denis is unhappy about.
OK, I see that, but now, we are stuffing everything into a timeval
struct. Does that make sense? Shouldn't we just use time_t? I realize
we need the timeval struct for select() in pqWaitTimed, but we are
making a copy of the timeval we pass in anyway. Seems it would be easier
just making it a time_t.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073