Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, in summary, reasons for the change:
> more intuitive
> more standard-compliant
> more closely matches other db's
I'd give you the first and third of those. As Andrew noted, the
argument that "it's more standard-compliant" is not very solid.
> Reasons not to change:
> PostgreSQL traditional behavior
You've phrased that in a way that makes it sound like the decision
is a no-brainer. How about
Breaks existing Postgres applications in non-obvious ways
which I think is a more realistic description of the downside.
Also, it seems a lot of people who have thought about this carefully
think that the start-of-transaction behavior is just plain more useful.
The fact that it surprises novices is not a reason why people who know
the behavior shouldn't want it to work like it does. (The behavior of
nextval/currval for sequences surprises novices, too, but I haven't
heard anyone claim we should change it because of that.)
So I think a fairer summary is
Pro:
more intuitive (but still not what an unversed person would
expect, namely true current time)
arguably more standard-compliant
more closely matches other db's (but still not very closely)
Con:
breaks existing Postgres applications in non-obvious ways
arguably less useful than our traditional behavior
I've got no problem with the idea of adding a way to get at
statement-arrival time. (I like the idea of a parameterized version of
now() to provide a consistent interface to all three functionalities.)
But I'm less than enthused about changing the existing functions to give
pride of place to statement-arrival time. In the end, I think that
transaction-start time is the most commonly useful and safest variant,
and so I feel it ought to have pride of place as the easiest one to get
at.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
