| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
| Date: | 2013-10-18 16:19:10 |
| Message-ID: | 52615F7E.70704@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/17/2013 01:41 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> > Perhaps; but it has also been an example of the benefits of having
>> > tight review.
> FWIW, I agree. I have been impressed by the rigorous review process of
> this project ever since I started following it.
>
OK, good! That makes me feel better.
So, I surveyed 30 members of the San Francisco PostgreSQL User Group
last night. Out of the 30:
4 had ever used pg_sleep(), and those four included Jeff Davis and Peter
G. I asked the remaining two about the new versions of pg_sleep, and
they were more interested in pg_sleep_until(), and not particularly
interested in pg_sleep(interval).
So, to my mind backwards compatibility (the ambiguity issue) is
insignificant because there are so few users of pg_sleep(), but there
are serious questions about the demand for improvements on pg_sleep for
that reason.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2013-10-18 16:24:58 | Re: removing old ports and architectures |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-10-18 16:14:48 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |