Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC10475E91 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (davinci.ethosmedia.com [209.10.40.250]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E472475B8F for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [66.219.92.2] (HELO chocolate-mousse) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 1658025; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:48:09 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Bruce Momjian Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:49:27 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] Cc: Manfred Koizar , Tom Lane , Aaron Held , Roberto Mello , Neil Conway , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org References: <200209232041.g8NKfix19001@candle.pha.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <200209232041.g8NKfix19001@candle.pha.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200209231349.27237.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200209/276 X-Sequence-Number: 9553 Bruce, > I don't see how we can defend returning the start of the transaction as > the current_timestamp. In a multi-statement transaction, that doesn't > seem very current to me. I know there are some advantages to returning > the same value for all queries in a transaction, but is that value worth > returning such stale time information? Then what *was* the reasoning behind the current behavior? --=20 -Josh Berkus ______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________ Josh Berkus Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com and data management solutions (415) 565-7293 for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533 and non-profit organizations. San Francisco