| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
| Date: | 2013-10-17 17:45:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoak8MtD2mwJNSX0+eP9=Tyaddd3m0_MgBuu9GZ91q0Ldw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Now, I do think the argument of "we don't really need pg_sleep(interval)
> because it's trivial to do yourself" has some merit, and that would be a
> good reason to argue acceptance or not. However, to date that has not
> been the topic of discussion.
I've made that exact argument several times on this thread. For example:
I've been focusing on the backward compatibility issue mostly BECAUSE
I don't think the feature has much incremental value. If logical
replication or parallel query required breaking pg_sleep('42'), I
wouldn't be objecting. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, and I further
apologize if you think I'm being too hard on a new patch submitter.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-17 17:46:39 | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-10-17 17:33:48 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |