From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
Date: | 2013-10-17 12:42:27 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoajDzWeeTe0Fc+LjXwopLYt1YgxDc2cuZU0SvDMBkFqyg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
I find that naming relatively elegant. However, you've got to
schema-qualify every function and operator used in the definitions, or
you're creating a search-path security vulnerability.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2013-10-17 12:53:08 | Re: FDW API / flow charts for the docs? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-17 12:39:56 | Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows |