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 20041207083717.GA16935@balrog.net-es.dk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps  (Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com>)
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?



Oops,

CURRENT_TIMESTAMP *does* advance from transaction to transaction. As you can
see from my previous mail, I thought it was fixed to the time of session
start.

CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is fine for me then and I will not use
timeofday()::timestamptz

/Per


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Nilesh Doshi"
Date:
Subject: Best practice in postgres
Next
From: pj@net-es.dk (Per Jensen)
Date:
Subject: Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps