| From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Date created for tables |
| Date: | 2019-12-06 02:50:11 |
| Message-ID: | 2ea6c52c-39f6-e62f-c6c9-8f98902db7b5@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 12/5/19 7:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:12:22PM -0600, Ron wrote:
>> On 12/5/19 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It's been considered, and rejected, many times. Aside from the overhead
>>> involved, there are too many different ideas of what such dates ought to
>>> mean (e.g., what should happen during dump/restore? does a failed
>>> transaction update last-modified? etc etc). You can search the
>>> project's mailing list archives if you want to read the prior discussions.
>> All the other RDBMSs seem to have figured it out.
> It does not necessarily mean that Postgres has to do it.
That's not what I wrote.
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | İlyas Derse | 2019-12-06 09:00:38 | Insert Table from Execute String Query |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-06 01:42:35 | Re: archiving question |