[HACKERS] compiling client utils under win32 - current 7.3devel is broken

2002-09-25 Thread Joe Conway
I'm trying to get the client utilities to compile under win32/VS.net per http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/install-win32.html. I was able to do this successfully using the 7.2.2 tarball, but using current 7.3devel there are a number of minor issues (missing defines, adjustments to

Re: [HACKERS] compiling client utils under win32 - current 7.3devel is broken

2002-09-25 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...it seems that the connection timeout can only be specified to the nearest second. Given that, is there any reason not to use time() instead of gettimeofday()? As the code stands it's pretty necessary. Since we'll go around the loop multiple times, in

Re: [HACKERS] compiling client utils under win32 - current 7.3devel

2002-09-25 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: It might work to measure time since the start of the whole process, or until the timeout target, rather than accumulating adjustments to the remains count each time through. In other words something like at start: targettime = time() + specified-timeout each

Re: [HACKERS] compiling client utils under win32 - current 7.3devel

2002-09-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joe Conway wrote: I was working with this approach, when I noticed on *unmodified* cvs tip (about a day old): test=# set statement_timeout=1; SET test=# \dt ERROR: Query was cancelled. test=# At: http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/runtime-config.html#LOGGING the

Re: [HACKERS] compiling client utils under win32 - current 7.3devel

2002-09-25 Thread Joe Conway
Bruce Momjian wrote: Uh, I thought you were changing connection_timeout, which is libpq and not a GUC parameter Yup, you're right -- I got myself confused. Sorry. not statement_timeout. Do we want sub-second timeout values? Not sure. I found it surprising that the statement_timeout was

Re: [HACKERS] compiling client utils under win32 - current 7.3devel

2002-09-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joe Conway wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Uh, I thought you were changing connection_timeout, which is libpq and not a GUC parameter Yup, you're right -- I got myself confused. Sorry. not statement_timeout. Do we want sub-second timeout values? Not sure. I found it surprising

Re: [HACKERS] compiling client utils under win32 - current 7.3devel

2002-09-25 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joe Conway wrote: I can't think of a reason to have sub-second values, but it's probably not worth changing it at this point. Most queries are sub-second in duration so it seemed logical to keep it the same as deadlock_timeout. And machines get