From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Aaron Held <aaron(at)MetroNY(dot)com>, Roberto Mello <rmello(at)cc(dot)usu(dot)edu>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Date: | 2002-09-23 20:49:27 |
Message-ID: | 200209231349.27237.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Bruce,
> I don't see how we can defend returning the start of the transaction as
> the current_timestamp. In a multi-statement transaction, that doesn't
> seem very current to me. I know there are some advantages to returning
> the same value for all queries in a transaction, but is that value worth
> returning such stale time information?
Then what *was* the reasoning behind the current behavior?
--
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-23 20:53:20 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Previous Message | pilsl | 2002-09-23 20:43:59 | bug(?) : order by function limit x |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-23 20:53:20 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-23 20:41:44 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-23 20:53:20 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-23 20:41:44 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |