From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
Date: | 2013-10-17 12:26:22 |
Message-ID: | 525FD76E.8070903@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/17/2013 10:03 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> My guess is that it won't be committed if there is a single "but it
> might break one code or surprise one user somewhere in the universe",
> but I wish I'll be proven wrong. IMO, "returned with feedback" on a 1
> liner is really akin to "rejected".
I have attached here an entirely new patch (new documentation and
everything) that should please everyone. It no longer overloads
pg_sleep(double precision) but instead add two new functions:
* pg_sleep_for(interval)
* pg_sleep_until(timestamp with time zone)
Because it's no longer overloading the original pg_sleep, Robert's
ambiguity objection is no more.
Also, I like how it reads aloud: SELECT pg_sleep_for('5 minutes');
If people like this, I'll reject the current patch and add this one to
the next commitfest.
Opinions?
--
Vik
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_sleep_enhancements.patch | text/x-patch | 5.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-17 12:39:56 | Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-17 12:22:52 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |