On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:03 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> While the WaitLatch alternative avoids the problem, I doubt
> we're ever going to remove pg_usleep entirely, so it'd be
> good if it had fewer sharp edges. nanosleep() has the
> same behavior as Windows, ie, the sleep is guaranteed to be
> terminated by a signal. So if we used nanosleep() where available
> we'd have that behavior on just about every interesting platform.
Is there any feasible way to go the other way, and make pg_usleep()
actually always sleep for the requested time, rather than terminating
early?
(Probably not, but I'm just asking.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company