Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > /* > > * select() may modify timeout argument on some platforms so > > ! * use copy. > > ! * XXX Do we really want to do that? If select() returns > > ! * the number of seconds remaining, we are resetting > > ! * the timeout to its original value. This will yeild > > ! * incorrect timings when select() is interrupted. > > ! * bjm 2002-10-14 > > */ > > tmp_timeout = *timeout; > > ptmp_timeout = &tmp_timeout; > > > Actually, now that I look at this, the API for PQwaitTimed is wrong > after all. The right way to implement this is for the caller to pass in > finish_time (or some indication that no timeout is wanted). Evaluation > of the time left to wait should happen inside this retry loop. That > way, you get the right behavior (plus or minus one second, anyway) > independently of whether the platform's select() reduces its timeout > argument or not.
Yes, you are saying do the time() inside PQwaitTimed(), so we can properly get new time() values on select() retry. Yep. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
