| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matt Miller <pgsql(at)mattmillersf(dot)fastmail(dot)fm> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing SYSDATE to Work |
| Date: | 2006-11-17 22:31:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20061117223107.GF5293@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Matt Miller wrote:
> I'd like SYSDATE to work syntactically and semantically the same as
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP (or CURRENT_TIME, or whatever). I can create a
> function called "sysdate" that does the trick, but then it seems I have
> to reference the function as "sysdate ()," but I want to be able to get
> away with just "sysdate." It seems that CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and their
> friends are magic functions that can be referenced without an explicit
> empty argument list.
current_time and the like are hardcoded in the grammar. You'd have to
do the same for sysdate. It's not hard, but then I'd question the
hassle of having to patch all the Postgres installations you're going to
want to run your code on.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2006-11-17 23:16:20 | Re: SPI |
| Previous Message | Bob Pawley | 2006-11-17 22:26:57 | After Update Triggers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2006-11-17 22:35:28 | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration |
| Previous Message | Matt Miller | 2006-11-17 22:26:37 | Allowing SYSDATE to Work |