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

Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>,Roland Roberts <roland(at)astrofoto(dot)org>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Date: 2002-09-30 03:53:59
Message-ID: 14617.1033358039@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-sql
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Are we still planning on putting the three different versions of now() on the
> TODO?  I.e.,
> now('transaction'),
> now('statement'), and
> now('immediate')
> With now() = now('transaction')?

I have no objection to doing that.  What seems to be contentious is
whether we should change the current behavior of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-09-30 04:12:24
Subject: Re: CVS split problems
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-09-30 03:48:18
Subject: Re: DROP COLUMN misbehaviour with multiple inheritance

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-09-30 04:36:34
Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Previous:From: Mike SostericDate: 2002-09-30 00:12:55
Subject: Re: [SQL] arrays

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-09-30 04:36:34
Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2002-09-30 03:23:41
Subject: Re: Server to server communication

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