On 19.11.2025 08:20, David Geier wrote:
>
> On 20.10.2025 21:59, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 2:16 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
>>> If I were
>>> a consultant trying to understand a customer's system, I would have to
>>> ask them to run it twice just in case 'fast' is supported, and I don't
>>> think that's very helpful.
>>
>> Big +1 from me.
>>
>
> That makes sense. I'm planning to rebase the patch the next days. Then
> I'll also take care of that.
The attached patched is rebased on latest master and pg_test_timing now
always tests the normal and the fast timing code. If no fast clock
source is available the fast timing code is skipped.
--
David Geier