From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
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 20:53:20 |
Message-ID: | 200209232053.g8NKrK320221@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> 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?
I thought the spec required it, but now that I see it doesn't, I don't
know why it was done that way.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-23 20:55:48 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-09-23 20:49:27 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-23 20:55:48 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-09-23 20:49:27 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-23 20:55:48 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-09-23 20:49:27 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |