pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2022 20:27:27 -0400
Message-ID: <295419.1659918447@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+hUKGJ5ej33AJL19sQph7Z8SFZ6+aUSKxFTS6pvk2Y8J9Tcwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+hUKGJ3LHeP9w5Fgzdr4G8AnEtJ=z=p6hGDEm4qYGEUX5B6fQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+Tgmoazusui5EoU_7Z=AgwC5pTAqDndTa7d-owjvQwG3zoRhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+hUKGLLJUMDgCzOK5K4NE6PpU87Ka7t7RQsZoZAZ_EKfL5L+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+Tgmoaw6VBC9Xzr4vOaC0kc-94jb9nzH8MY38Gqn7=wy=i_3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20220712173352.trdeq66asbv6vf2q@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<1662559.1657648462@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKG+MOzmDkr27ceG8+uwgFxbJUUv699V3VP3DCioQigrf7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1249825.1658622186@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKGLryBW4fNYoXzMG9y1e0H-QOTdSiTG46xCr1DNuuPwbeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+hUKGJMcwbzRyfTocfxbPBUhERqKE42d-L22jQ+vpB7an-NjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20220804034343.unm4rdynedbigamv@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<3322724.1659586159@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKGJ5ej33AJL19sQph7Z8SFZ6+aUSKxFTS6pvk2Y8J9Tcwg@mail.gmail.com>

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 4:09 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> clock_gettime is required by SUSv2 (1997), so I have to admit that
>> macOS 10.4 doesn't have a lot of excuse not to have it.  In any case,
>> prairiedog is just sitting there doing its thing until I find cycles
>> to install a newer OS.  If you want to move ahead with this, don't
>> let prairiedog block you.

> Thanks, will do.

BTW, that commit really should have updated the explanation at the top of
instr_time.h:

 * This file provides an abstraction layer to hide portability issues in
 * interval timing.  On Unix we use clock_gettime() if available, else
 * gettimeofday().  On Windows, gettimeofday() gives a low-precision result
 * so we must use QueryPerformanceCounter() instead.  These macros also give
 * some breathing room to use other high-precision-timing APIs.

Updating the second sentence is easy enough, but as for the third,
I wonder if it's still true in view of 24c3ce8f1.  Should we revisit
whether to use gettimeofday vs. QueryPerformanceCounter?  At the very
least I suspect it's no longer about "low precision", but about which
API is faster.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (108+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <295419.1659918447@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../295419.1659918447@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/295419.1659918447@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, thomas.munro@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, andrew@dunslane.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage
  In-Reply-To: <295419.1659918447@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox