| From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT |
| Date: | 2003-03-29 23:40:52 |
| Message-ID: | m3k7ehvj0b.fsf@varsoon.wireboard.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Accordingly, it's a bad idea to invent now('clock') and make it the
> same function as the other flavors. We could get away with making
> now('transaction') and now('statement') ---- but the argument for this
> was consistency, and that argument pretty much falls flat if those two
> are one function while clock time is something else.
>
> So I'm back in the camp of thinking three separate parameterless
> functions are the way to do it. We already know what now() does,
> and we're not going to change it --- anyone want to propose names
> for the other two?
Maybe clock_time() and statement_time(), with transaction_time() an
alias for now() (if that's seemed necessary)?
A little verbose perhaps, but clear...
-Doug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve | 2003-03-30 01:09:00 | SQL Query to get Column constraints |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-29 22:45:18 | Re: Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT |