On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@dalibo.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/2013 10:03 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> My guess is that it won't be committed if there is a single "but it
>> might break one code or surprise one user somewhere in the universe",
>> but I wish I'll be proven wrong. IMO, "returned with feedback" on a 1
>> liner is really akin to "rejected".
>
> I have attached here an entirely new patch (new documentation and
> everything) that should please everyone. It no longer overloads
> pg_sleep(double precision) but instead add two new functions:
>
> * pg_sleep_for(interval)
> * pg_sleep_until(timestamp with time zone)
>
> Because it's no longer overloading the original pg_sleep, Robert's
> ambiguity objection is no more.
>
> Also, I like how it reads aloud: SELECT pg_sleep_for('5 minutes');
>
> If people like this, I'll reject the current patch and add this one to
> the next commitfest.
I find that naming relatively elegant. However, you've got to
schema-qualify every function and operator used in the definitions, or
you're creating a search-path security vulnerability.
--
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
