| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2002-09-29 19:43:45 |
| Message-ID: | 200209291243.45747.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Tom,
> I'd be happier with the whole thing if anyone had exhibited a convincing
> use-case for statement timestamp. So far I've not seen any actual
> examples of situations that are not better served by either transaction
> timestamp or true current time. And the spec is perfectly clear that
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP does not mean true current time...
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 still think it's a good idea, provided that we have some easy means to
determine now('statement').
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-29 20:38:37 | Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
| Previous Message | Masaru Sugawara | 2002-09-29 16:46:50 | Re: "Custom" records? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-09-29 20:00:59 | Re: Do we want a CVS branch now? |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-09-29 19:26:37 | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-09-29 20:38:14 | Proposal for Clean-up of Conversion Functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-29 04:35:53 | Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |