Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78774760CE for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.libertyrms.com (unknown [209.167.124.227]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D6E476063 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew by mail.libertyrms.com with local (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 17xFrb-0004RH-00 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:58:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:58:39 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP Message-ID: <20021003195839.A16643@mail.libertyrms.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan , PostgreSQL-development References: <200210032215.g93MFx823428@candle.pha.pa.us> <15244.1033686573@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <15244.1033686573@sss.pgh.pa.us>; from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us on Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 07:09:33PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200210/183 X-Sequence-Number: 29952 On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 07:09:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > statement-arrival time. (I like the idea of a parameterized version of > now() to provide a consistent interface to all three functionalities.) I like this, too. I think it'd be probably useful. But. . . > pride of place to statement-arrival time. In the end, I think that > transaction-start time is the most commonly useful and safest variant, . . .I also think this is true. If I'm doing a bunch of database operations in one transaction, there is a remarkably good argument that they happened "at the same time". After all, the marked passage of time is probably just an unfortunate side effect of the inability of my database can't process things instantaneously. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110