| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>, lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index on timestamp field, and now() |
| Date: | 2002-02-12 17:59:31 |
| Message-ID: | 200202121759.g1CHxVV00246@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com> writes:
> > Oups. Sorry my mistake. But 7.2's limited understanding is enough to do
> > constant propagation as far as I can see. :-)))
>
> Correct, it's the now() function that's not cachable --- but you can get
> around that with the "timestamp 'now'" kluge.
Isn't CURRENT_TIMESTAMP the preferred method for this?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-12 18:08:14 | Re: Index on timestamp field, and now() |
| Previous Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2002-02-12 17:58:56 | Re: postgresql -- what's in a name? |