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

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
Subject Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Date
Msg-id 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961EAB@m0114.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > I'd give you the first and third of those.  As Andrew noted, the
> > argument that "it's more standard-compliant" is not very solid.
>
> The standard doesn't say anything about transaction in this regard.

Yes, it sais statement.

Note also, that a typical SELECT only session would not advance
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP at all in the typical "autocommit off" mode that
the Spec is all about.

> What do others think?

I liked your proposal to advance CURRENT_TIMESTAMP at each statement start.
(It would not advance inside a stored procedure).

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Shridhar Daithankar"
Date:
Subject: Re: Large databases, performance
Next
From: Steve King
Date:
Subject: Bad rules