On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:50:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> pg_sleep seems like a better idea to me too.
ok, renamed again.
> Why is the function defined to take numeric rather than float8?
> float8 is a whole lot easier to work with internally.
ok, changed.
> The proposed regression test seems unacceptably fragile, as well as
> rather pointless.
Why is it fragile? Which other regression test do you suggest? Or should it
go without one?
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:54:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, a serious problem with just passing it off to pg_usleep like that
> is that the sleep can't be aborted by a cancel request
No, cancelling the sleep works (at least for Unix). Isn't cancelling
implemented via a signal that interrupts select() ?
Anyway, I've changed it, removing the ~2000s limit is a good point.
I append a new version with the regression test ripped out.
Joachim