| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures |
| Date: | 2018-09-25 22:01:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwY8E9NA9QqcLXAKGTKXbnPp_8s3qTX9rWL2FHE_jnLBMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 06:35:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Does the SQL standard have anything to say about CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in
> > procedures? Do we need another function that does advance on procedure
> > commit?
>
> I found a section in the SQL standards that talks about it, but I don't
> understand it. Can I quote the paragraph here?
I've seen others do it; and small sections of copyrighted material posted
for commentary or critique would likely be covered by "fair use" exemptions.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-09-25 22:02:38 | Re: Calculate total_table_pages after set_base_rel_sizes() |
| Previous Message | Saheed Bolarinwa | 2018-09-25 21:54:03 | Please, can I be a mentor for Google Code In |