From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
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 23:35:13 -0400
Message-ID: <9760.1032838513@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200209240037.g8O0bwM14523@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200209240037.g8O0bwM14523@candle.pha.pa.us>
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?
'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().
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, mkoi-pg@aon.at, aaron@MetroNY.com, rmello@cc.usu.edu, neilc@samurai.com
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
In-Reply-To: <9760.1032838513@sss.pgh.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