On 08/16/2013 05:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Well, if that's the alternative, I'd vote for taking it. For me, personally, I think the usefulness of it would outstrip the number of functions I'd have to debug. For one thing, it's not like pg_sleep is exactly widely used, especially not from languages like PHP which tend to treat every variable as a string. So this is not going to be the kind of upgrade bomb that pg_size_pretty was. -- 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
