Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps - Mailing list pgsql-general

From pj@net-es.dk (Per Jensen)
Subject Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps
Date
Msg-id 20041207082520.GA16887@balrog.net-es.dk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps  (Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com>)
Responses Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps  (Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>)
List pgsql-general
Den Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 03:13:04AM -0000 eller der omkring skrev Andrew - Supernews:
> On 2004-12-07, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > Is there a way to say "just take the value of this function at the start
> > of the transaction and then have it be constant" in a query?
>
> Why not use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, etc., which do exactly that?
>

Because when using transactions, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP does not advance, but is fixed
to time of session start

/Per

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: pj@net-es.dk (Per Jensen)
Date:
Subject: Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps
Next
From: Mark
Date:
Subject: question: how to preload data and excute table creation scripts