Hi, On 2023-01-23 18:52:44 +0100, David Geier wrote: > One thing I was wondering about: why did you chose to use a signed instead > of an unsigned 64-bit integer for the ticks?
That's been the case since my first post in the thread :). Mainly, it seems easier to detect underflow cases during subtraction that way. And the factor of 2 in range doesn't change a whole lot. > > > If you have time to look at the pg_test_timing part, it'd be > > > appreciated. That's a it larger, and nobody looked at it yet. So I'm a bit > > > hesitant to push it. > > I haven't yet pushed the pg_test_timing (nor it's small prerequisite) > > patch. > > > > I've attached those two patches. Feel free to include them in your series if > > you want, then the CF entry (and thus cfbot) makes sense again... > I'll include them in my new patch set and also have a careful look at them. Thanks. Greetings, Andres Freund
