On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > - the new function is *not* tested anywhere! > > I would suggest simply to replace some pg_sleep(int) instances > by corresponding pg_sleep(interval) instances in the non > regression tests. > > - some concerns have been raised that it breaks pg_sleep(TEXT) > which currently works thanks to the implicit TEXT -> INT cast. > > I would suggest to add pg_sleep(TEXT) explicitely, like: > > CREATE FUNCTION pg_sleep(TEXT) RETURNS VOID VOLATILE STRICT AS > $$ select pg_sleep($1::INTEGER) $$ LANGUAGE SQL; > > That would be another one liner, to update the documentation and > to add some tests as well! > > ISTM that providing "pg_sleep(TEXT)" cleanly resolves the > upward-compatibility issue raised.
I think that's ugly and I'm not one bit convinced it will resolve all the upgrade-compatibility issues. Realistically, all sleeps are going to be reasonably well measured in seconds anyway. If you want to sleep for some other interval, convert that interval to a number of seconds first. Another problem is that, as written, this is vulnerable to search_path hijacking attacks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
