Re: results via pgAdmin but not via psycopg2 - Mailing list psycopg

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