| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
| Date: | 2013-10-17 18:36:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1382034976.75481.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Our project has a serious, chronic problem with giving new
> patch-submitters a bad experience, and this patch is a good
> example of that.
Perhaps; but it has also been an example of the benefits of having
tight review. IMO, pg_sleep_for() and pg_sleep_until() are better
than the initial proposal. For one thing, since each accepts a
specific type, it allows for cleaner syntax. These are not only
unambiguous, they are easier to code and read than what was
originally proposed:
select pg_sleep_for('10 minutes');
select pg_sleep_until('tomorrow 05:00');
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-10-17 19:47:08 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-17 18:27:01 | Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows |