On 08/16/2013 05:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> Why not just call it pg_sleep_int()?
>
> To me, that looks like something that would take an int. I suppose you
> could call it pg_sleep_interval(), but that's getting pretty verbose.
>
> The larger picture here though is that that's ugly as sin; it just flies
> in the face of the fact that PG *does* have function overloading and we
> do normally use it, not invent randomly-different function names to avoid
> using it. We should either decide that this feature is worth the small
> risk of breakage, or reject it. Not build a camel-designed-by-committee
> because no one would speak up for consistency of design.
Well, if that's the alternative, I'd vote for taking it. For me,
personally, I think the usefulness of it would outstrip the number of
functions I'd have to debug.
For one thing, it's not like pg_sleep is exactly widely used, especially
not from languages like PHP which tend to treat every variable as a
string. So this is not going to be the kind of upgrade bomb that
pg_size_pretty was.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com