Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Date
Msg-id 200210070513.g975D6810936@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP  (Yury Bokhoncovich <byg@center-f1.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
Yury Bokhoncovich wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Yes, I agree with you Manfred, but more people _don't_ want it to
> > change, and like it the way it is, so we will just keep it and add
> > now("string").
> 
> IMHO the best way could be GUC-default/SET session-based variable 
> controlling the behaviour. By default old Pg one, but ppl can set 
> standard-compliant. Such changes were done often in past, look at "group 
> by" behaviour changes 6.4->6.5, default Pg datetime representation format 
> change, etc. I think those who concern interoperability confirm that it's 
> much easy to add one SET per session then replace all CURRENT_STAMP to 
> now(blah-blah-blah). Moreover, ppl who need old behaviour can easily 
> revert to this by just one SET (in case GUC is set to new behaviour).

Let's see if people want the more standards-compliant behavior before
adding a GUC, no?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yury Bokhoncovich
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Next
From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD"
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching