Thread: Clarify use of NOW() in pl/pgsql docs
Folks, This one from Ben Calvert. It uses the (imho clearer) NOW() rather than 'NOW' in a PL/PgSQL function example. Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
Attachment
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:28 -0800, David Fetter wrote: > This one from Ben Calvert. It uses the (imho clearer) NOW() rather > than 'NOW' in a PL/PgSQL function example. Applied, thanks. -Neil
On Feb 10, 2005, at 14:00, Neil Conway wrote: > On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:28 -0800, David Fetter wrote: >> This one from Ben Calvert. It uses the (imho clearer) NOW() rather >> than 'NOW' in a PL/PgSQL function example. > > Applied, thanks. I realize it's a bit late, but it might not be a bad idea to use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP rather than NOW(), as it's per SQL spec. Michael Glaesemann grzm myrealbox com
>>This one from Ben Calvert. It uses the (imho clearer) NOW() rather >>than 'NOW' in a PL/PgSQL function example. > > > Applied, thanks. Why not use CURRENT_TIMSTAMP instead of NOW() everywhere in the docs. I mean, it's standard and NOW() isn't... Chris
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:32 +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote: > I realize it's a bit late, but it might not be a bad idea to use > CURRENT_TIMESTAMP rather than NOW(), as it's per SQL spec. I can't say I can get very excited about it; someone is free to submit a patch if they like. -Neil
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:32 +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>> I realize it's a bit late, but it might not be a bad idea to use
>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP rather than NOW(), as it's per SQL spec.
> I can't say I can get very excited about it; someone is free to submit a
> patch if they like.
Considering that the example in question is embedded in the 100%-not-SQL-
standard language plpgsql, I can't get excited about this either.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Considering that the example in question is embedded in the > 100%-not-SQL- standard language plpgsql, I can't get excited about > this either. I was under the impression that our PL/pgSQL is at least partially an attempt to implement SQL:2003, part 4. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I was under the impression that our PL/pgSQL is at least partially an
> attempt to implement SQL:2003, part 4.
No, it's an attempt to emulate Oracle's PL/SQL. Any similarity to spec
documents dated later than the original creation of plpgsql (1998) is
quite accidental...
regards, tom lane