Re: I was spoiled by the MySQL timestamp field

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
Cc: "Matthew Nuzum" <cobalt(at)bearfruit(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: I was spoiled by the MySQL timestamp field
Date: 2003-01-27 04:20:52
Message-ID: 19434.1043641252@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> writes:
> At 05:00 PM 1/26/03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (BTW, the reason 'now' without "timestamp" in front works is that this
>> is not a timestamp literal but a text literal, which will be coerced
>> to timestamp at runtime.)

> Is it known at the moment which of those methods the Postgresql team are
> aiming to continue supporting for the near/medium future?

AFAIK there are no plans to break any of them; though certainly
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is the most future-proof, being spec-mandated.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-01-27 04:24:03 Re: When to Vacuum
Previous Message Lincoln Yeoh 2003-01-27 04:09:43 Re: I was spoiled by the MySQL timestamp field