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