Tom Lane wrote: > In general, I do not like options that subtly change the behavior of > long-established functions, anyway. Seems like a great recipe for > breaking people's applications. I'm okay with adding new functions as > per the already-agreed-to set of names (though like Peter I wish we > could think of something clearer than clock_timestamp()). Rejiggering > the behavior of already-existing functions was not part of what had > been agreed to.
instant_timestamp? immediate_timestamp? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
