Horton

Re: (Fwd) Re: Any Oracle 9 users? A test please...

Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>, Dan Langille <dan@langille.org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-09-30T18:35:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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 lower 
> > bound is #4, not #5, and the upper bound is implementation 
> > dependent. Therefore PostgreSQL is in compliance, but its 
> > compliance is not very popular.
> 
> I don't see how we can be compliant if SQL92 says:
> 
> 	The time of evaluation of the <datetime value function> 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 ambiguous? 

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