On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Now, I do think the argument of "we don't really need pg_sleep(interval) > because it's trivial to do yourself" has some merit, and that would be a > good reason to argue acceptance or not. However, to date that has not > been the topic of discussion.
I've made that exact argument several times on this thread. For example: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobKneq=f9e8tzywg6haotzxozpvjqh14mpb9f+xlv6...@mail.gmail.com I've been focusing on the backward compatibility issue mostly BECAUSE I don't think the feature has much incremental value. If logical replication or parallel query required breaking pg_sleep('42'), I wouldn't be objecting. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, and I further apologize if you think I'm being too hard on a new patch submitter. -- 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
