Michael Banck <[email protected]> writes:
> 2. The fact that nobody else complained about those new(er) timestamp-
> comparison additions appears to imply that there are no 100ms resolution
> machines we support anymore. So did we consider switching those
> pg_sleep(0.1) calls in stats.sql to pg_sleep(0.01) to save a bit of
> time?
Yeah, we realized last year that no supported platform has worse than
1usec gettimeofday resolution anymore [1]. So I think you're right
that we could shave some milliseconds off stats.sql, as well as some
other test scripts. I doubt this'd make for a meaningful time
savings, but perhaps it's worth doing just for consistency: grepping
for pg_sleep in our tests, I see anywhere from 0.1 to 0.001 sec.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/[email protected]
