On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 11:51:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > Well, I'd rather it didn't change at all. IMHO it's a feature, not a bug. In > > any case, if it does get changed we'll have to go through the documentation > > and work out whether we mean current_timestamp or now(). I think most people > > actually want now(). > > Well, I think we have to offer statement start time somewhere, and it > seems the standard probably requires that. Two other databases do it > that way. Oracle doesn't have CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in 8.X. Can anyone > test on 9.X?
Hmm, well having a statement start time could be conceivably useful. > > Fortunatly where I work we only use now() so it won't really matter too > > much. Is there a compelling reason to change? > > Yes, it will split now() and CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. I personally would be > happy with STATEMENT_TIMESTAMP, but because the standard requires it we > may just have to fix CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. Well, my vote would be for STATEMENT_TIMESTAMP. Is there really no other database that does it the way we do? Perhaps it could be matched with a TRANSACTION_TIMESTAMP and we can sort out CURRENT_TIMESTAMP some other way. -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that can do binary > arithmetic and those that can't. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
