From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Niladic functions |
Date: | 1999-03-09 17:37:55 |
Message-ID: | 36E55C73.32A97FD6@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > This appears to be untrue. Is this a change since 6.4 or is there
> > > some cases where using CURRENT_TIMESTAMP will not do the expected
> > > thing?
> This paragraph says that CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is evaluated at the time
> the table is defined yet I tested this with a current version and it
> actually gets evaluated at INSERT time.
You are right; I had changed the parser to force a string into the parse
tree rather than a constant. Would you be interested in sending patches
for the docs? :)
> > > Also, the title of the document (The PostgreSQL Development Team)
> > > seems to be incorrect.
> > My browser shows that as the second line, just under the title
> > "PostgreSQL", as I intended. What browser are you using?
> Sorry, my misunderstanding. I didn't realize that PostgreSQL was the
> title of this particular document. Anyway, the link to this page is
> "Integrated Document" so there is a small inconsistency.
The problem is that this is a document integrated from all of the other
documents for purposes of HTML formatting and browsing. I wanted to make
clear that all of the information appears somewhere in the other
documents.
- Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-03-09 17:38:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Developers globe |
Previous Message | Choong, Eddie | 1999-03-09 16:44:06 | Bitwise AND |