Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
От | Manfred Koizar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
Дата | |
Msg-id | agb0pu83fvpta3lr1e8g46vc3sbvusi6nm@4ax.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-sql |
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:55:48 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >Here's an example: > >CREATE RULE foo AS ON INSERT TO mytable DO >( INSERT INTO log1 VALUES (... , now(), ...); > INSERT INTO log2 VALUES (... , now(), ...) ); > >I think it's important that these commands store the same timestamp in >both log tables (not to mention that any now() being stored into mytable >itself generate that same timestamp). I agree. SQL99 mentions this requirement for triggers and I think we can apply it to rules as well. Here is another example: BEGIN; INSERT INTO foo VALUES (..., CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, ...); -- wait a few seconds INSERT INTO foo VALUES (..., CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, ...); COMMIT; Please don't ask me, why I would want that, but the standard demands the timestamps to be different. >After all, it's only a minor implementation >detail that you chose to fire these logging operations via a rule and >not by client-side logic. No, it's fundamentally different whether you do something in one SQL-statment or per a sequence of statements. ServusManfred
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: