Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)
Date: 2014-02-02 09:50:35
Message-ID: CAOBaU_Z1breqyHphXUvSegnXm2seRdgJz_v_aGeCN0EjeORQzg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

It seems like pg_sleep_until() has issues if used within a transaction, as
it uses now() and not clock_timestamp(). Please find attached a patch that
solves this issue.

For consistency reasons, I also modified pg_sleep_for() to also use
clock_timestamp.

Regards

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:

> On 01/30/2014 09:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2013 02:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)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.
> > Committed.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Vik
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
pg_sleep.diff text/plain 2.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-02-02 10:45:37 Re: GIN improvements part2: fast scan
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2014-02-02 08:36:49 Re: [HACKERS] Insert result does not match record count