Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)
Date
Msg-id 1382034976.75481.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@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.  IMO, pg_sleep_for() and pg_sleep_until() are better
than the initial proposal.  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');

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written: panic on windows
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem