> On 2 Jul 2024, at 20:55, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Here's a cleaned-up code patch addressing the cfbot complaints
> and making the output logic a bit neater.
>
> I think this is committable code-wise, but the documentation needs
> work, if not indeed a complete rewrite. The examples are now
> horribly out of date, and it seems that the "Clock Hardware and Timing
> Accuracy" section is quite obsolete as well, since it suggests that
> the best available accuracy is ~100ns.
>
> TBH I'm inclined to rip most of the OS-specific and hardware-specific
> information out of there, as it's not something we're likely to
> maintain well even if we got it right for current reality.
Hi Tom!
This thread has associated CF entry which is marked as RwF [0]. But the change
proved to be useful [1] in understanding what we can expect from time source.
It was requested many times before [2,3]. Reading through this thread it seems
to me that my questions about application of the pg_test_timing somehow
switched focus from this patch. However, I'd appreciate if it was applied.
Nanoseconds seem important to me.
Let me know if I can help in any way. Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
[0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/5066/
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cad21aoc4iar7m_ogtha0hzmezot68_0vwucqjjxkk2iw89w...@mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMT0RQQJWNoki_vmckYb5J1j-BENBE0YtD6jJmVg--Hyvt7Wjg%40mail.gmail.com
[3]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/198ef658-a5b7-9862-2017-faf85d59e3a8%40gmail.com#37d8292e93ec34407a41e7cbf56e5481
