Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 68BB7475C3D; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:54:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 86995475B8E; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:54:15 -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 g8U3rxhR014618;
	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>,
	Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>,
	Roland Roberts <roland@astrofoto.org>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP 
In-reply-to: <200209291243.45747.josh@agliodbs.com> 
References: <20020929034706.GA6199@svana.org>
 <20020929041007.GB6199@svana.org>
	<8140.1033274153@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200209291243.45747.josh@agliodbs.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
	message dated "Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:43:45 -0700"
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:53:59 -0400
Message-ID: <14617.1033358039@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200209/1365
X-Sequence-Number: 30946

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Are we still planning on putting the three different versions of now() on the
> TODO?  I.e.,
> now('transaction'),
> now('statement'), and
> now('immediate')
> With now() = now('transaction')?

I have no objection to doing that.  What seems to be contentious is
whether we should change the current behavior of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.

			regards, tom lane