| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Wang Mike <itlist(at)msn(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: clock_timestamp() and transaction_timestamp() function |
| Date: | 2003-12-01 15:52:46 |
| Message-ID: | 200312011552.hB1Fqku18374@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> In general, I do not like options that subtly change the behavior of
> long-established functions, anyway. Seems like a great recipe for
> breaking people's applications. I'm okay with adding new functions as
> per the already-agreed-to set of names (though like Peter I wish we
> could think of something clearer than clock_timestamp()). Rejiggering
> the behavior of already-existing functions was not part of what had
> been agreed to.
instant_timestamp? immediate_timestamp?
--
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-01 15:53:32 | Re: clock_timestamp() and transaction_timestamp() function |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-01 15:52:36 | Re: clock_timestamp() and transaction_timestamp() function |