| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of 'now' |
| Date: | 2001-11-14 07:08:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3BF21872.F90FEB6A@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
...
> Hmm. It was *supposed* to be removed entirely, but possibly what
> Thomas actually did was to continue to accept the keyword as equivalent
> to 'now'. Thomas?
Not sure where "supposed to" came from ;)
Previous versions of PostgreSQL can and will generate dump files which
have 'current'. I did make it equivalent to 'now' for at least the 7.2
series of releases.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-11-14 07:23:30 | Re: Use of 'now' |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-14 03:58:48 | Re: Use of 'now' |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-11-14 07:23:30 | Re: Use of 'now' |
| Previous Message | Ivan Babikov | 2001-11-14 05:59:56 | Is there an API reference for Postgres? What about 2-phase transactions? |