> "Mike" == Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yury Bokhoncovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> As reported by my friend: Oracle 8.1.7 (ver.9 behaves the same way):
>>> [ to_char(sysdate) advances in a transaction ]
>> Now I'm really conf
The original tester says "this is an anonymous procedure".
On 30 Sep 2002 at 15:07, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> It is not clear to me; is this its own transaction or a function
> call?
>
> --
> -
>
> Dan Langille wrote:
> >
Howdy All,
You have to explicitly commit transactions in oracle using SQL*Plus.
However, DUAL (eg. SELECT current_timestamp FROM DUAL;) is special in this
case. It is a table in the sys schema, used for selecting constants,
pseudo-columns, etc.
I'm not sure if this helps but see:
http://downl
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>Has anyone done the corresponding experiments on the other DBMSes to
>identify exactly when they allow CURRENT_TIMESTAMP to advance ?
>
This applies up to Oracle 8.1.6, maybe it helps:
According to a co-worker, Oracle advances the time in transactions:
select to_char(sysdat
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>Has anyone done the corresponding experiments on the other DBMSes to
>identify exactly when they allow CURRENT_TIMESTAMP to advance ?
>
I have Db2 on hand and examined CURRENT TIMESTAMP in an sql procedure.
(IBM have implemented it without the "_" )
The short of it is
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Paesold wrote:
>
> > What about NOW()? It should be available in Oracle 8? Is it the same as
> > SYSDATE?
> >
>
> Unless I'm missing something, NOW() neither works in Oracle 8
> nor appears in the Oracle 9i online documentation:
>
>
http://downloa
Michael Paesold wrote:
> What about NOW()? It should be available in Oracle 8? Is it the same as
> SYSDATE?
>
Unless I'm missing something, NOW() neither works in Oracle 8
nor appears in the Oracle 9i online documentation:
http://download-west.oracle.com/otndoc/oracle9i/901_doc/server.901/a90
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't test the use of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP because I have Oracle
> 8, not 9.
What about NOW()? It should be available in Oracle 8? Is it the same as
SYSDATE?
Regards,
Michael Paesold
---(end of broadcast)---
ssfully completed.
>
>
> TO_CHAR(A,'-MM-
> ---
> 2002-10-02 11:33:12
> 2002-10-02 11:33:17
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Mascari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: Bruce
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SQL> CREATE PROCEDURE test
>2 AS
>3 BEGIN
>4 INSERT INTO foo SELECT SYSDATE FROM dual;
>5 dbms_lock.sleep(5);
>6 INSERT INTO foo SELECT SYSDATE FROM dual;
>7 END;
>8 /
> Procedure created.
> SQL> execute test;
> PL
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> OK, two requests. First, would you create a _named_ PL/SQL function
> with those contents and try it again. Also, would you test
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP too?
>
SQL> CREATE TABLE foo(a date);
Table created.
As a PROCEDURE:
SQL> CREATE PROCEDURE test
2 AS
3 BEGIN
Mike Mascari wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Mike Mascari wrote:
> >>
> >>Oracle isn't processing those statements interactively. SQL*Plus
> >>is waiting on the "/" to send the PL/SQL block to the database.
> >>I suspect its not going to take Oracle more than a second to
> >>insert a row...
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Mike Mascari wrote:
>>
>>Oracle isn't processing those statements interactively. SQL*Plus
>>is waiting on the "/" to send the PL/SQL block to the database.
>>I suspect its not going to take Oracle more than a second to
>>insert a row...
>
>
> Oh, I understand now. He
Mike Mascari wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yury Bokhoncovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>As reported by my friend:
> >>Oracle 8.1.7 (ver.9 behaves the same way):
> >>[ to_char(sysdate) advances in a transaction ]
> >
> >
> > Now I'm really confused; this directly contradicts the report o
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yury Bokhoncovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>As reported by my friend:
>>Oracle 8.1.7 (ver.9 behaves the same way):
>>[ to_char(sysdate) advances in a transaction ]
>
>
> Now I'm really confused; this directly contradicts the report of Oracle
> 8's behavior that we had ea
Yury Bokhoncovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As reported by my friend:
> Oracle 8.1.7 (ver.9 behaves the same way):
> [ to_char(sysdate) advances in a transaction ]
Now I'm really confused; this directly contradicts the report of Oracle
8's behavior that we had earlier from Roland Roberts. Ca
Hello!
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It is not clear to me; is this its own transaction or a function call?
BTW.
As reported by my friend:
Oracle 8.1.7 (ver.9 behaves the same way):
--- cut ---
SQL> SET TRANSACTION READ WRITE;
Transaction set.
SQL> SELECT TO_CHAR(SYSDATE, 'DD-
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see how we can be compliant if SQL92 says:
> The time of evaluation of the 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 ambiguo
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:29:07 -0400, Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'm wondering how the others handle multiple
>references in CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in a single stored
>procedure/function invocation.
MSSQL 7 seems to evaluate CURRENT_TIMESTAMP for each statement,
Interbase 6 once per pro
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
>>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)
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 inv
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
I am starting to see Tom's issue here. If you have a PL/pgSQL function
that does:
> >>DECLARE
> >>BEGIN
> >> SELECT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP INTO time1 FROM DUAL;
> >> SELECT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP INTO time2 FROM DUAL;
> >>END;
You would want those two to be the same because they are in the same
functi
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It is not clear to me; is this its own transaction or a function call?
>
That looks like an anonymous PL/SQL procedure to me. Another
question might be, given:
"more than one reference to one or more s, then all such references are effectively evaluated
simultaneously"
It is not clear to me; is this its own transaction or a function call?
---
Dan Langille wrote:
> And just for another opinion, which supports the first.
>
> >From now, unless you indicate otherwise, I'll only report tests
OK, I just received this answer from an Oracle 9 tester. It shows
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP changing during the transaction. Thanks, Dan.
Dan, it wasn't clear if this was in a transaction or not. Does Oracle
have autocommit off by default so you are always in a transaction?
-
26 matches
Mail list logo
