Re: Index on timestamp field, and now()

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 18:11:57
Message-ID: 200202121811.g1CIBvG01831@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> Doesn't make any difference as far as this point is concerned.
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP isn't cachable either.

My point was that CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in the more standard way; 'now' is a
PostgreSQL-ism. Both work fine.

--
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-02-12 18:27:03 Re: [HACKERS] Feature enhancement request : use of libgda
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-02-12 18:08:14 Re: Index on timestamp field, and now()