From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
Date: | 2014-02-02 09:50:35 |
Message-ID: | CAOBaU_Z1breqyHphXUvSegnXm2seRdgJz_v_aGeCN0EjeORQzg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
It seems like pg_sleep_until() has issues if used within a transaction, as
it uses now() and not clock_timestamp(). Please find attached a patch that
solves this issue.
For consistency reasons, I also modified pg_sleep_for() to also use
clock_timestamp.
Regards
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> On 01/30/2014 09:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2013 02:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >> Good catch. Updated patch attached.
> > Committed.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Vik
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_sleep.diff | text/plain | 2.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-02-02 10:45:37 | Re: GIN improvements part2: fast scan |
Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-02-02 08:36:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Insert result does not match record count |