| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Sullivan" <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
| Date: | 2002-10-04 09:43:38 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961EAB@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I'd give you the first and third of those. As Andrew noted, the
> > argument that "it's more standard-compliant" is not very solid.
>
> The standard doesn't say anything about transaction in this regard.
Yes, it sais statement.
Note also, that a typical SELECT only session would not advance
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP at all in the typical "autocommit off" mode that
the Spec is all about.
> What do others think?
I liked your proposal to advance CURRENT_TIMESTAMP at each statement start.
(It would not advance inside a stored procedure).
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-04 13:37:02 | numeric hierarchy again (was Re: floor function in 7.3b2) |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-04 08:00:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance |