Re: clock_timestamp() and transaction_timestamp() function

Tom Lane wrote:
> In general, I do not like options that subtly change the behavior of
> long-established functions, anyway.  Seems like a great recipe for
> breaking people's applications.  I'm okay with adding new functions as
> per the already-agreed-to set of names (though like Peter I wish we
> could think of something clearer than clock_timestamp()).  Rejiggering
> the behavior of already-existing functions was not part of what had
> been agreed to.

instant_timestamp?  immediate_timestamp?

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073