On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@dalibo.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/2013 02:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Good catch. Updated patch attached.
Committed.
--
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
