Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP

Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> ...
> > Seems that isn't helping enough to reduce the number of people who are
> > surprised by our behavior.  I don't think anyone would be surprised by
> > statement time.
> 
> I think that there is no compelling reason for changing the current 
> behavior. There is no *single* convention used by all other databases, 
> and *if* the standard specifies this as "statement time" then afaict no 
> database implements that exactly.

I was attempting to get closer to the standards and to other databases,
and to make it perhaps more intuitive.

> Transaction time is the only relatively deterministic time, and other 
> times are (or could be) available using other function calls. So what 
> problem are we trying to solve?
> 
> There is no evidence that a different convention would change the number 
> of folks who do not understand what convention was chosen.
> 
> Arguing to change the current implementation without offering to include 
> the functionality to handle all of the scenarios seems to be premature. 
> And arguing that a change would be clearer to some folks is not 
> compelling; "transaction start" is at least as easily understood as any 
> other definition we could make.

Yes, clearly, we will need to have all three time values available to
users.  With three people now suggesting we don't change, I will just
add to TODO:
Add now("transaction|statement|clock") functionality

Is that good?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073