Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20852475C15 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D844475B8F for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g8NKrK320221; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:53:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200209232053.g8NKrK320221@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP In-Reply-To: <200209231349.27237.josh@agliodbs.com> To: josh@agliodbs.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:53:20 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Manfred Koizar , Tom Lane , Aaron Held , Roberto Mello , Neil Conway , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200209/277 X-Sequence-Number: 9554 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