On 08/16/2013 04:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Since the same effect can be had by writing a user-defined SQL function, > I'm a bit inclined to say that the value-added by having this as a > built-in function doesn't justify the risk of breaking existing apps. > It's a close call though, because both the risk and the value-added seem > rather small from here.
Why not just call it pg_sleep_int()? I, for one, would find it useful, but would be really unhappy about about having to debug a bunch of old code to figure out what was broken. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
