On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 01:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Given what Tom has posted regarding the standard, I think Oracle
> > is wrong. I'm wondering how the others handle multiple
> > references in CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in a single stored
> > procedure/function invocation. It seems to me that the lower
> > bound is #4, not #5, and the upper bound is implementation
> > dependent. Therefore PostgreSQL is in compliance, but its
> > compliance is not very popular.
> I don't see how we can be compliant if SQL92 says:
> The time of evaluation of the <datetime value function> during the
> execution of the SQL-statement is implementation-dependent.
> It says it has to be "during the SQL statement", or is SQL statement
> also ambiguous?
It can be, as "during the SQL statement" can mean either the single
statement inside the PL/SQL function (SELECT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP INTO
time1 FROM DUAL;) or the whole invocation of the Pl/SQL funtion (the /
command in Mikes sample, i believe)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jean-Luc Lachance||Date: 2002-09-30 18:37:45|
|Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP|
|Previous:||From: Mike Sosteric||Date: 2002-09-30 18:24:13|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] arrays|