Hannu Krosing wrote: > 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)
Which is what Oracle may have done. SQL99 talks about triggers seeing the same date/time, but then again if your trigger is a function, it has to see the same values for all of its calls. This doesn't match Oracle, unless they have some switch that returns consistent values when the function is called as a trigger (yuck). -- 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 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
