On 12/31/2013 05:14 AM, Krystian Samp wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> This sounds good,
>
> Would a commit() be considered slow or undesirable?
For the purpose of the SELECT, more unnecessary than anything else. You
would be invoking a transaction for the sole purpose of rolling over a
time value. This as pointed out can be solved without committing a
transaction. For a detailed look at your options see:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/functions-datetime.html#FUNCTIONS-DATETIME-CURRENT
9.9.4. Current Date/Time
It documents the behavior of the various date(time) functions.
>
> K
>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 13:09, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:52:51PM +0000, Krystian Samp wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you so much, this was the problem indeed, and “connection.commit()” solved it.
>>>
>>> Didn’t think about committing after a SELECT command.
>>
>> If you want to spare the commit you may want to look at statement_timestamp();
>>
>> Karsten
>> --
>> GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
>> E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via psycopg mailing list (psycopg@postgresql.org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/psycopg
>
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com
