| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, Aaron Held <aaron(at)MetroNY(dot)com>, Roberto Mello <rmello(at)cc(dot)usu(dot)edu>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
| Date: | 2002-09-24 03:35:13 |
| Message-ID: | 9760.1032838513@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I was thinking 'transaction_timestamp' for the transaction start time, and
> current_timestamp for the statement start time. I would equate now()
> with current_timestamp.
So you want to both (a) invent even more nonstandard syntax than we
already have, and (b) break as many traditional-Postgres applications
as you possibly can?
'transaction_timestamp' has no reason to live. It's not in the spec.
And AFAIK the behavior of now() has been well-defined since the
beginning of Postgres. If you want to change 'current_timestamp' to
conform to a rather debatable reading of the spec, then fine --- but
keep your hands off of now().
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-09-24 03:36:35 | Re: DBLink: interesting issue |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2002-09-24 03:34:18 | Re: Postgresql Automatic vacuum |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-09-24 03:36:35 | Re: DBLink: interesting issue |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-24 03:18:18 | Re: [SQL] Monitoring a Query |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-24 03:37:45 | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-24 03:18:18 | Re: [SQL] Monitoring a Query |