X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BE8D1C4C8 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:53:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01806-07 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:52:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8D9D1C4B9 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:53:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6SGqfQ3015185; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:52:42 -0400 (EDT) To: Dmitry Tkach Cc: Denis Zaitsev , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Very strange 'now' behaviour in nested triggers. In-reply-to: <3F2552BF.5060100@openratings.com> References: <20030726193947.B1636@natasha.ward.six> <9412.1059229904@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20030727020104.A19865@natasha.ward.six> <4629.1059320950@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3F2552BF.5060100@openratings.com> Comments: In-reply-to Dmitry Tkach message dated "Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:43:43 -0400" Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:52:41 -0400 Message-ID: <15184.1059411161@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200307/414 X-Sequence-Number: 14528 Dmitry Tkach writes: > Why not get rid of 'now' alltogether? Are there any cases when it is > actually useful as opposed to now()? Data entry. You don't necessarily have the option to invoke a function, as opposed to just sending a string for the datetime input parser. (It would be rather difficult for an application to allow this one case without permitting SQL-injection attacks, I'd think.) regards, tom lane