From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
Cc: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Date: | 2002-10-05 19:02:22 |
Message-ID: | 200210051902.g95J2Mf09842@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yes, I agree with you Manfred, but more people _don't_ want it to
change, and like it the way it is, so we will just keep it and add
now("string").
Added to TODO:
* Add now("transaction|statement|clock") functionality
I have attached an SGML patch that explains the issues with
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:29:03 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
> <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> >OK, are we agreed to leave CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/now() alone and just add
> >now("string")? If no one replies, I will assume that is a yes and I
> >will add it to TODO.
>
> So my view of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP not being spec compliant didn't find
> much agreement. No problem, such is life.
>
> May I suggest that a "Compatibility" section is added to the bottom of
> functions-datetime.html?
>
>
> In case this issue is revisited later let me add for the archives:
>
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 09:54:42 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> wrote:
> >Freezing CURRENT_TIMESTAMP goes right along with that, and in fact makes
> >a lot of sense, because it tells you exactly what time your snapshot
> >of the database state was taken.
>
> I like this interpretation. But bear in mind that a transaction's own
> actions are visible to later commands in the same transaction.
> Looking at the clock is an "own action", so this is perfectly
> compatible with (my reading of) General Rule 1.
>
> A statement does not see its own modifications which corresponds to
> (my interpretation of) General Rule 3.
>
> And one last thought: There are applications out there that are not
> written for one specific database backend. Having to replace
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP by PG-specific now('statement') is just one more
> pain in trying to be portable across different backends.
>
> Servus
> Manfred
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
unknown_filename | text/plain | 1.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2002-10-05 19:22:45 | Re: Anyone else having list server problems? |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-10-05 18:29:45 | Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large |