| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, 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 15:36:35 |
| Message-ID: | 3755.1033832195@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> 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.
Based on this discussion, it seems any application that depends on a
specific behavior of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is going to have portability
problems anyway. Even if we did change CURRENT_TIMESTAMP to match
now('statement'), it would not act exactly like anyone else's.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-05 16:07:37 | Re: Use of sync() [was Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-05 15:32:42 | Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance |