| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | NTPT <ntpt(at)centrum(dot)cz> |
| Cc: | Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>, Chris Boget <chris(at)wild(dot)net>, Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Touch row ? |
| Date: | 2004-01-26 01:25:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20040126012539.GB15844@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-general |
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:09:02AM +0100, NTPT wrote:
> And why in POSTGRESQL there is not just an appropriate DATATYPE for creating a column type touch_timestamp in table (I suggest touch_timestamp to be the same in one transaction... ) ?
> I thing that it might be useful (and add no overhead) for lot of tasks ......
It would have overhead but why not just use a trigger which is the supported
and far more flexible way of doing this?
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> (... have gone from d-i being barely usable even by its developers
> anywhere, to being about 20% done. Sweet. And the last 80% usually takes
> 20% of the time, too, right?) -- Anthony Towns, debian-devel-announce
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2004-01-27 02:37:55 | == PostgreSQL Weekly News - January 26th 2004 == |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-01-25 15:12:41 | Re: Touch row ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Travers | 2004-01-26 04:21:41 | Re: OT: SCO Extortion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-26 00:35:47 | Re: Fwd: Re: [Ossi] New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License |