On 01/30/2014 09:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.
Thanks!
--
Vik
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
