Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>,Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...
Date: 2002-09-30 18:35:57
Message-ID: 1033410957.2444.3.camel@rh72.home.ee (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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)

--------------
Hannu



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jean-Luc LachanceDate: 2002-09-30 18:37:45
Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Previous:From: Mike SostericDate: 2002-09-30 18:24:13
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] arrays

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group