On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > I think what you are advocating is recomputing now() at each statement > boundary within a transaction, but that's not as simple as it looks > either. Consider statement boundaries in an SQL function --- the > function is probably being called from some outer statement, so > advancing now() within the function would violate the spec constraint > with respect to the outer statement. Postgres doesn't have an idea of what a 'top-level' statement is? I.E. statement as submitted by a client (libpq)? -alex
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within transaction Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within transaction John Huttley
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within transaction Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within transaction Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within transaction Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within transaction Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within transact... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within tra... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within tra... Don Baccus
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within tra... Alex Pilosov
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Vadim Mikheev
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Vadim Mikheev
- Re: [HACKERS] time stops within... Hiroshi Inoue
- RE: [HACKERS] time stops within... Hiroshi Inoue