From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting |
Date: | 2017-08-17 03:37:27 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ7GMiCPgGH=9d1FuDTr9pY=sC45unrQoz=31+X_hXPwg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Piotr Stefaniak
<postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> wrote:
> At the very least, I think timestamptz_in() should either complain about
> being called outside of transaction or return the expected value,
> because returning year 2000 is unuseful at best. I would also like to
> become able to do what I'm doing in a less hacky way (assuming there
> isn't one already but I may be wrong), perhaps once there is a new
> 'furthest' setting for recovery_target or when recovery_target_time =
> 'now' works as I expected.
Hm. I think that the most simple solution here would be to change
GetCurrentDateTime() and GetCurrentTimeUsec() so as they use
GetCurrentTimestamp() instead of the transaction-level equivalents if
those code paths are invoked outside of a transaction. Any code using
those routines would get stupid timestamps anyway if they try to use
keywords like 'today', 'now' or 'tomorrow' so that does not sound like
a bad change to me.
And yes, that's clearly a bug. Nice discovery.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-08-17 04:06:00 | Re: Proposal: Improve bitmap costing for lossy pages |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-17 02:56:47 | Re: Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules |