Re: I was spoiled by the MySQL timestamp field

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: will trillich <will(at)serensoft(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: I was spoiled by the MySQL timestamp field
Date: 2003-01-27 13:58:47
Message-ID: 5.1.0.14.1.20030127214317.02cc3360@mbox.jaring.my
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

At 11:59 PM 1/26/03 -0600, will trillich wrote:

>On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 05:00:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > now() is a function call and will not be folded into a constant.
>
> > You can easily check the behavior for yourself rather than relying on
> > other people's assertions.
>
>note -- this is ALWAYS a good idea. especially when it's *me*
>giving the assertion :)

It's still good hear from the developers what they think the behaviour
should be, and would be.

If the devs, docs and software agree then it'll be fine to use the feature.
Otherwise if possible, it might be a better idea to use a different feature
to achieve what I want. Don't want to use a behaviour will soon be
deprecated/changed.

Of course, it's not good to pester you guys for everything either. But
current_timestamp vs now() vs 'now' would probably be a popular feature
enough to clarify.

Hope this doesn't waste too much bandwidth ;).
Link.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lincoln Yeoh 2003-01-27 14:03:28 Re: too many users for postgresql? :)
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2003-01-27 13:57:39 Re: too many users for postgresql? :)