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!


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

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



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

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


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

>>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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

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/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

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



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match