On 10/17/2013 01:41 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >> > 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. >
OK, good! That makes me feel better. So, I surveyed 30 members of the San Francisco PostgreSQL User Group last night. Out of the 30: 4 had ever used pg_sleep(), and those four included Jeff Davis and Peter G. I asked the remaining two about the new versions of pg_sleep, and they were more interested in pg_sleep_until(), and not particularly interested in pg_sleep(interval). So, to my mind backwards compatibility (the ambiguity issue) is insignificant because there are so few users of pg_sleep(), but there are serious questions about the demand for improvements on pg_sleep for that reason. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
