| From: | Roland Roberts <roland(at)astrofoto(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please... |
| Date: | 2002-10-02 14:48:45 |
| Message-ID: | m27kh0j3qq.fsf@kuiper.rlent.pnet |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
Mike> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yury Bokhoncovich <byg(at)center-f1(dot)ru> writes:
>>> As reported by my friend: Oracle 8.1.7 (ver.9 behaves the same way):
>>> [ to_char(sysdate) advances in a transaction ]
>> Now I'm really confused; this directly contradicts the report
>> of Oracle 8's behavior that we had earlier from Roland Roberts.
>> Can someone explain why the different results?
Mike> Roland used an anonymous PL/SQL procedure:
You're right and I didn't think enough about what was happening. This
also explains why I so often see the same timestamp throughout a
transaction---the transaction is all taking place inside a PL/SQL
procedure.
roland
--
PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
roland(at)rlenter(dot)com 76-15 113th Street, Apt 3B
roland(at)astrofoto(dot)org Forest Hills, NY 11375
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-02 15:06:31 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
| Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-10-02 14:20:03 | Re: Fwd: int type problem in 7.3 |