Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)
Date: 2013-08-18 01:58:19
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYcZ0i9omL7bSPEOskc2uxipqh9Mt7Su0Hg3x7DZVF6bw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> That example can be used as an argument against almost any kind of
> overloading.

Yep.

And that may be justified. We don't handle overloading particularly well.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2013-08-18 06:21:40 warning in code while building on windows
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-08-18 01:38:57 Re: Feature Request on Extensions