Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07ABF475D93; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F87475458; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8ULQ2hR011773; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:26:02 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, Martijn van Oosterhout , Manfred Koizar , Roland Roberts , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP In-reply-to: <200209301849.g8UInoE16701@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200209301849.g8UInoE16701@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:49:50 -0400" Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:26:01 -0400 Message-ID: <11772.1033421161@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200209/1413 X-Sequence-Number: 30994 Bruce Momjian writes: > Also, we have MSSQL, Interbase, and now Oracle modifying > CURRENT_TIMESTAMP during the transaction. (The Oracle report just came > in a few hours ago.) Weren't you dissatisfied with the specificity of that Oracle report? > Perhaps we need a vote on this. Perhaps, but let's wait till the facts are in. regards, tom lane