| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mendola Gaetano <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Henry House <hajhouse(at)houseag(dot)uce-not-wanted-here(dot)com>, Anagha Joshi <ajoshi(at)nulinkinc(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Timestamp of insertion of the row. |
| Date: | 2003-06-13 15:39:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20030613153935.GD16756@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 00:17:38 +0200,
Mendola Gaetano <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> wrote:
> "Henry House" <hajhouse(at)houseag(dot)uce-not-wanted-here(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yes. Easy answer: use a column of type 'timestamp default now()'.
>
> With that default value you store the time
> stamp of transaction where the row was inserted. Immagine to insert
> inside the same transaction a lot of rows and this operation will take long
> 1 minute, you'll have all rows with the same time stamp instead of time
> stamp spreaded inside that minute, use timeofday instead.
You still may not want to use timeofday even for long transactions.
It depends on what the data really means to you.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sidar Lopez Cruz | 2003-06-13 15:55:01 | statistics question |
| Previous Message | kopra | 2003-06-13 13:23:05 | Re: DUMPall PG7.1.3 restore to PG7.3.2 |