Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Why not just call it pg_sleep_int()?
To me, that looks like something that would take an int. I suppose you
could call it pg_sleep_interval(), but that's getting pretty verbose.
The larger picture here though is that that's ugly as sin; it just flies
in the face of the fact that PG *does* have function overloading and we
do normally use it, not invent randomly-different function names to avoid
using it. We should either decide that this feature is worth the small
risk of breakage, or reject it. Not build a camel-designed-by-committee
because no one would speak up for consistency of design.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
