*** Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> [Wednesday, 21.February.2001, 16:55 -0500]:
> Hmm, exactly what I was thinking of, except that it returns a text
> rather than a timestamp (a strange choice...).
But it's implicit casted to timestamp type so i think is good choice to
use in DEFAULT clause at this moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> It seems a little
> buggy as well because the formatting of the microseconds part is
> wrong --- will fix that, and document it.
In 7.1 version?
--
radoslaw.stachowiak.........................................http://alter.pl/
