From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, 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: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
Date: | 2013-10-17 20:41:29 |
Message-ID: | 52604B79.7010500@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/17/2013 08:36 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, I agree. I have been impressed by the rigorous review process of
this project ever since I started following it.
> IMO, pg_sleep_for() and pg_sleep_until() are better
> than the initial proposal.
I agree here, as well. I was quite pleased with myself when I thought
of it, and I would not have thought of it had it not been for all the
pushback I received. Whether it goes in or not (I hope it does), I am
happy with the process.
> 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');
These are pretty much exactly the examples I put in my documentation.
--
Vik
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2013-10-17 21:01:22 | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-10-17 19:59:05 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |