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
