On 12/5/19 7:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:12:22PM -0600, Ron wrote:
>> On 12/5/19 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It's been considered, and rejected, many times. Aside from the overhead
>>> involved, there are too many different ideas of what such dates ought to
>>> mean (e.g., what should happen during dump/restore? does a failed
>>> transaction update last-modified? etc etc). You can search the
>>> project's mailing list archives if you want to read the prior discussions.
>> All the other RDBMSs seem to have figured it out.
> It does not necessarily mean that Postgres has to do it.
That's not what I wrote.
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
