Tom Lane wrote:
> In general, I do not like options that subtly change the behavior of
> long-established functions, anyway. Seems like a great recipe for
> breaking people's applications. I'm okay with adding new functions as
> per the already-agreed-to set of names (though like Peter I wish we
> could think of something clearer than clock_timestamp()). Rejiggering
> the behavior of already-existing functions was not part of what had
> been agreed to.
instant_timestamp? immediate_timestamp?
--
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, Pennsylvania 19073