Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
Cc: Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Date: 2002-10-05 19:02:22
Message-ID: 200210051902.g95J2Mf09842@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Yes, I agree with you Manfred, but more people _don't_ want it to
change, and like it the way it is, so we will just keep it and add
now("string").

Added to TODO:

* Add now("transaction|statement|clock") functionality

I have attached an SGML patch that explains the issues with
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in more detail.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:29:03 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
> <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> >OK, are we agreed to leave CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/now() alone and just add
> >now("string")? If no one replies, I will assume that is a yes and I
> >will add it to TODO.
>
> So my view of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP not being spec compliant didn't find
> much agreement. No problem, such is life.
>
> May I suggest that a "Compatibility" section is added to the bottom of
> functions-datetime.html?
>
>
> In case this issue is revisited later let me add for the archives:
>
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 09:54:42 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> wrote:
> >Freezing CURRENT_TIMESTAMP goes right along with that, and in fact makes
> >a lot of sense, because it tells you exactly what time your snapshot
> >of the database state was taken.
>
> I like this interpretation. But bear in mind that a transaction's own
> actions are visible to later commands in the same transaction.
> Looking at the clock is an "own action", so this is perfectly
> compatible with (my reading of) General Rule 1.
>
> A statement does not see its own modifications which corresponds to
> (my interpretation of) General Rule 3.
>
> And one last thought: There are applications out there that are not
> written for one specific database backend. Having to replace
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP by PG-specific now('statement') is just one more
> pain in trying to be portable across different backends.
>
> Servus
> Manfred
>

--
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

Attachment Content-Type Size
unknown_filename text/plain 1.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2002-10-05 19:22:45 Re: Anyone else having list server problems?
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2002-10-05 18:29:45 Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large