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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Date
Msg-id 3755.1033832195@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP  (Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> And one last thought:  There are applications out there that are not
> written for one specific database backend.  Having to replace
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP by PG-specific now('statement') is just one more
> pain in trying to be portable across different backends.

Based on this discussion, it seems any application that depends on a
specific behavior of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is going to have portability
problems anyway.  Even if we did change CURRENT_TIMESTAMP to match
now('statement'), it would not act exactly like anyone else's.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Use of sync() [was Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching]