Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1033410957.2444.3.camel@rh72.home.ee обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please... (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 01:10, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Given what Tom has posted regarding the standard, I think Oracle > > is wrong. I'm wondering how the others handle multiple > > references in CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in a single stored > > procedure/function invocation. It seems to me that the lower > > bound is #4, not #5, and the upper bound is implementation > > dependent. Therefore PostgreSQL is in compliance, but its > > compliance is not very popular. > > 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? It can be, as "during the SQL statement" can mean either the single statement inside the PL/SQL function (SELECT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP INTO time1 FROM DUAL;) or the whole invocation of the Pl/SQL funtion (the / command in Mikes sample, i believe) -------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: