On 08/16/2013 04:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Since the same effect can be had by writing a user-defined SQL function,
> I'm a bit inclined to say that the value-added by having this as a
> built-in function doesn't justify the risk of breaking existing apps.
> It's a close call though, because both the risk and the value-added seem
> rather small from here.
Why not just call it pg_sleep_int()?
I, for one, would find it useful, but would be really unhappy about
about having to debug a bunch of old code to figure out what was broken.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
