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. Regard, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
