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
[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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
