On Sat, Mar 1, 2025 at 6:37 AM Jacob Champion
<jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Should we maybe consider just doing that across the board, and put up
> with the inefficiency? Admittedly 1ms is a lot more dead time than
> 1ns...
Last time I checked, NetBSD is still using scheduler ticks (100hz
periodic interrupt) for all this kind of stuff so it's even worse than
that :-)
> I prefer your patch, personally.
Cool, I'll commit it shortly unless someone else comes up with a better idea.