From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: time stops within transaction |
Date: | 2000-10-18 16:10:04 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0010181808020.3228-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> That is what now() is defined to return: transaction start time.
>
> > Then CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is in violation of SQL.
>
> Au contraire, if it did not behave that way it would violate the spec.
> See SQL92 6.8 general rule 3:
>
> 3) If an SQL-statement generally contains more than one reference
> to one or more <datetime value function>s, then all such ref-
> erences are effectively evaluated simultaneously. The time of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> evaluation of the <datetime value function> during the execution
> of the SQL-statement is implementation-dependent.
statement != transaction
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-18 16:39:29 | Re: time stops within transaction |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-18 16:07:59 | Re: toast operations while locking a buffer |