From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200209240337.g8O3bjq01954@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
In-Reply-To: <9760.1032838513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>,
	Aaron Held <aaron@MetroNY.com>, Roberto Mello <rmello@cc.usu.edu>,
	Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I was thinking 'transaction_timestamp' for the transaction start time, and
> > current_timestamp for the statement start time.  I would equate now()
> > with current_timestamp.
> 
> So you want to both (a) invent even more nonstandard syntax than we
> already have, and (b) break as many traditional-Postgres applications
> as you possibly can?

No, but I would like to see you stop makeing condescending replies to
emails.  How is that!

> 'transaction_timestamp' has no reason to live.  It's not in the spec.
> And AFAIK the behavior of now() has been well-defined since the
> beginning of Postgres.  If you want to change 'current_timestamp' to
> conform to a rather debatable reading of the spec, then fine --- but
> keep your hands off of now().

Oh, really.    When you get down off your chair we can vote on it.

-- 
  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