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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers