On 10/17/2013 02:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com> wrote:
>> On 10/17/2013 10:03 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> My guess is that it won't be committed if there is a single "but it
>>> might break one code or surprise one user somewhere in the universe",
>>> but I wish I'll be proven wrong. IMO, "returned with feedback" on a 1
>>> liner is really akin to "rejected".
>> I have attached here an entirely new patch (new documentation and
>> everything) that should please everyone. It no longer overloads
>> pg_sleep(double precision) but instead add two new functions:
>>
>> * pg_sleep_for(interval)
>> * pg_sleep_until(timestamp with time zone)
>>
>> Because it's no longer overloading the original pg_sleep, Robert's
>> ambiguity objection is no more.
>>
>> Also, I like how it reads aloud: SELECT pg_sleep_for('5 minutes');
>>
>> If people like this, I'll reject the current patch and add this one to
>> the next commitfest.
> I find that naming relatively elegant. However, you've got to
> schema-qualify every function and operator used in the definitions, or
> you're creating a search-path security vulnerability.
>
Good catch. Updated patch attached.
--
Vik