Clarify use of NOW() in pl/pgsql docs
Folks,
This one from Ben Calvert. It uses the (imho clearer) NOW() rather
than 'NOW' in a PL/PgSQL function example.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Attachments:
now.difftext/plain; charset=us-asciiDownload+2-2
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:28 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
This one from Ben Calvert. It uses the (imho clearer) NOW() rather
than 'NOW' in a PL/PgSQL function example.
Applied, thanks.
-Neil
On Feb 10, 2005, at 14:00, Neil Conway wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:28 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
This one from Ben Calvert. It uses the (imho clearer) NOW() rather
than 'NOW' in a PL/PgSQL function example.Applied, thanks.
I realize it's a bit late, but it might not be a bad idea to use
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP rather than NOW(), as it's per SQL spec.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
This one from Ben Calvert. It uses the (imho clearer) NOW() rather
than 'NOW' in a PL/PgSQL function example.Applied, thanks.
Why not use CURRENT_TIMSTAMP instead of NOW() everywhere in the docs. I
mean, it's standard and NOW() isn't...
Chris
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:32 +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
I realize it's a bit late, but it might not be a bad idea to use
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP rather than NOW(), as it's per SQL spec.
I can't say I can get very excited about it; someone is free to submit a
patch if they like.
-Neil
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:32 +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
I realize it's a bit late, but it might not be a bad idea to use
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP rather than NOW(), as it's per SQL spec.
I can't say I can get very excited about it; someone is free to submit a
patch if they like.
Considering that the example in question is embedded in the 100%-not-SQL-
standard language plpgsql, I can't get excited about this either.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Considering that the example in question is embedded in the
100%-not-SQL- standard language plpgsql, I can't get excited about
this either.
I was under the impression that our PL/pgSQL is at least partially an
attempt to implement SQL:2003, part 4.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
I was under the impression that our PL/pgSQL is at least partially an
attempt to implement SQL:2003, part 4.
No, it's an attempt to emulate Oracle's PL/SQL. Any similarity to spec
documents dated later than the original creation of plpgsql (1998) is
quite accidental...
regards, tom lane