On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:28 PM, k...@rice.edu <k...@rice.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 03:12:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> > On 18.07.2011 18:32, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Hmm. Well, it's not too late to rethink the WaitLatch API, if we think >> >> that that might be a significant limitation. >> >> > Right, we can easily change the timeout argument to be in milliseconds >> > instead of microseconds. >> >> On the whole I'd be more worried about giving up the shorter waits than >> the longer ones --- it's not too hard to imagine using submillisecond >> timeouts in the future, as machines get faster. If we really wanted to >> fix this, I think we need to move to a wider datatype. >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > You could also tag the high bit to allow you to encode larger ranges > by having microseconds for the values with the high bit = 0 and use > milliseconds for the values with the high bit = 1. Then you could > have the best of both without punching up the width of the datatype.
Considering that we're just talking about a function call here, and not something that ever goes out to disk, that seems like entirely too much notational complexity. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
