Author vstinner
Recipients belopolsky, ethan.furman, larry, mark.dickinson, r.david.murray, tbarbugli, trcarden, vstinner
Date 2015-07-05.10:42:37
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAMpsgwZiLJkdEkxzxp+ph5H4YTqXdngx9UvMM+N6eorKHi76Ag@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1435889228.66.0.609645465346.issue23517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Le vendredi 3 juillet 2015, Alexander Belopolsky <report@bugs.python.org> a
écrit :
>
> > UNIX doesn't like timestamps in the future
>
> I don't think this is a serious consideration.  The problematic scenario
> would be obtaining high-resolution timestamp (from say time.time()),
> converting it to datetime and passing it back to OS as a possibly 0.5µs
> higher value.  Given that timestamp -> datetime -> timestamp roundtrip by
> itself takes over 1µs, it is very unlikely that by the time rounded value
> hits the OS it is still in the future.
>

In many cases the resolution is 1 second. For example, a filesystem with a
resolution of 1second. Or an API only supporting a resolution of 1 second.

With a resoltuion of 1 second, timestamps in the future are likely (50%).

Sorry I don't remember all detail of timestamp rounding and all issues that
I saw.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-07-05 10:42:37vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, mark.dickinson, belopolsky, larry, r.david.murray, ethan.furman, tbarbugli, trcarden
2015-07-05 10:42:37vstinnerlinkissue23517 messages
2015-07-05 10:42:37vstinnercreate