X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0AAD1C4EC for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:44:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02069-09 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:43:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from exchange.hq.openratings.com (unknown [141.149.165.226]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73782D1C4E8 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:44:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from openratings.com (cancun.hq.openratings.com [10.0.0.225]) by exchange.hq.openratings.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id PNZ51L44; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:44:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3F2552BF.5060100@openratings.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:43:43 -0400 From: Dmitry Tkach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: Denis Zaitsev , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Very strange 'now' behaviour in nested triggers. References: <20030726193947.B1636@natasha.ward.six> <9412.1059229904@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20030727020104.A19865@natasha.ward.six> <4629.1059320950@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <4629.1059320950@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200307/416 X-Sequence-Number: 14530 Tom Lane wrote: > >I put up a proposal in pgsql-hackers to change this behavior: >http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-07/msg00818.php >If we made that change then the "wrong" way of defining the default >would fail in an obvious fashion --- the 'now' would get reduced to a >particular time immediately at CREATE TABLE. Doubtless this would annoy >some people, but the "right" way of defining the default isn't really >any harder, and it would save folks from getting burnt in corner cases, >like you were. > >Any comments? > > > Why not get rid of 'now' alltogether? Are there any cases when it is actually useful as opposed to now()? Dima