From: | Michael Adler <adler(at)pobox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sleep functions |
Date: | 2005-08-22 13:30:23 |
Message-ID: | 20050822133022.GA25930@pobox.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 09:13:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> > What do people think of exposing pg_usleep() to the user?
>
> I'm not real enthused about it. Generally speaking, a sleep() on the
> database side means you are idling while holding locks, and that does
> not seem like something we want to encourage people to do.
>
> As other responders noted, it's trivial to program this in any of the
> untrusted PL languages, So what you're really proposing is that we give
> sleep() to non-superusers, and that seems like a bit of a hard sell.
> Let's see a use-case or three.
There may be a better alternative, but wouldn't this let application
writers easily test the effects of a long running transaction?
-Mike
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Palle Girgensohn | 2005-08-22 13:49:16 | Re: Win32 unicode vs ICU |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-22 13:19:58 | Re: Win32 unicode vs ICU |