From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Aaron Held <aaron@MetroNY.com>
Cc: Roberto Mello <rmello@cc.usu.edu>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <200209232053.g8NKrK320221@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200209231349.27237.josh@agliodbs.com>
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> 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?
I thought the spec required it, but now that I see it doesn't, I don't
know why it was done that way.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com, mkoi-pg@aon.at, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, aaron@MetroNY.com, rmello@cc.usu.edu, neilc@samurai.com
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
In-Reply-To: <200209232053.g8NKrK320221@candle.pha.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox