Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't see how we can be compliant if SQL92 says: > The time of evaluation of the <datetime value function> during the > execution of the SQL-statement is implementation-dependent. > It says it has to be "during the SQL statement", or is SQL statement > also ambiguous? Is that why Oracle did what they did?
Yes, you're finally seeing my issue: "SQL statement" isn't all that well-defined a concept. ISTM that the reported behavior of Oracle's pl/sql is *clearly* in violation of SQL92: the body of a pl/sql function is a single <SQL procedure statement> per SQL92 4.17, so how can they allow current_timestamp to change within it? It would be even more interesting to try the same function called from another pl/sql function --- in that scenario, hardly anyone could deny that the whole execution of the inner function is contained within one statement of the outer function, and therefore current_timestamp should not be changing within it. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html