On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Now, I do think the argument of "we don't really need pg_sleep(interval)
> because it's trivial to do yourself" has some merit, and that would be a
> good reason to argue acceptance or not. However, to date that has not
> been the topic of discussion.
I've made that exact argument several times on this thread. For example:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobKneq=f9e8TzYwG6haoTZxOZPvJqh14mpb9f+XLv67ZQ@mail.gmail.com
I've been focusing on the backward compatibility issue mostly BECAUSE
I don't think the feature has much incremental value. If logical
replication or parallel query required breaking pg_sleep('42'), I
wouldn't be objecting. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, and I further
apologize if you think I'm being too hard on a new patch submitter.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
