Hello Vik,
Yes, I understand you are trying to help, and I appreciate it! My
opinion, and that of others as well from the original thread, is that
this patch should either go in as is and break that one case, or not go
in at all. I'm fine with either (although clearly I would prefer it
went in otherwise I wouldn't have written the patch).
I see this is marked as rejected in the commitfest app, but I don't see
any note about who did it or why. I don't believe there is consensus
for rejection on this list. In fact I think the opposite is true.
May we have an explanation please from the person who rejected this
without comment?
I did it, on the basis that you stated that you prefered not adding
pg_sleep(TEXT) to answer Robert Haas concern about preserving
pg_sleep('10') current functionality, and that no other solution was
suggested to tackle this issue.
If I'm mistaken, feel free to change the state back to what is
appropriate.
My actual opinion is that breaking pg_sleep('10') is no big deal, but I'm
nobody here, and Robert is somebody, so I think that his concern must be
addressed.
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
