On 10/17/2013 08:36 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>
>> Our project has a serious, chronic problem with giving new
>> patch-submitters a bad experience, and this patch is a good
>> example of that.
> Perhaps; but it has also been an example of the benefits of having
> tight review.
FWIW, I agree. I have been impressed by the rigorous review process of
this project ever since I started following it.
> IMO, pg_sleep_for() and pg_sleep_until() are better
> than the initial proposal.
I agree here, as well. I was quite pleased with myself when I thought
of it, and I would not have thought of it had it not been for all the
pushback I received. Whether it goes in or not (I hope it does), I am
happy with the process.
> For one thing, since each accepts a
> specific type, it allows for cleaner syntax. These are not only
> unambiguous, they are easier to code and read than what was
> originally proposed:
>
> select pg_sleep_for('10 minutes');
> select pg_sleep_until('tomorrow 05:00');
These are pretty much exactly the examples I put in my documentation.
--
Vik
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
