Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...
Date
Msg-id 1033410957.2444.3.camel@rh72.home.ee
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 01:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Given what Tom has posted regarding the standard, I think Oracle 
> > is wrong. I'm wondering how the others handle multiple 
> > references in CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in a single stored 
> > procedure/function invocation. It seems to me that the lower 
> > bound is #4, not #5, and the upper bound is implementation 
> > dependent. Therefore PostgreSQL is in compliance, but its 
> > compliance is not very popular.
> 
> I don't see how we can be compliant if SQL92 says:
> 
>     The time of evaluation of the <datetime value function> during the
>     execution of the SQL-statement is implementation-dependent.
> 
> It says it has to be "during the SQL statement", or is SQL statement
> also ambiguous? 

It can be, as "during the SQL statement" can mean either the single
statement inside the PL/SQL function (SELECT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP INTO
time1 FROM DUAL;) or the whole invocation of the Pl/SQL funtion (the /
command in Mikes sample, i believe)

--------------
Hannu




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...