Alex Ignatov <a.ignatov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > You always should keep in mind that your application may run in test > mode (future/past time) and maintain this code. While with my proposal > you can always use some time function(now or localtimestamp or > whatever) which you can freeze at anytime on DB level, not operation > system(using some 3rd libs) or application(using wrappers and other hacks). We're not really in the business of being Oracle --- which in this particular context means not trying to duplicate tens of thousands of bizarre little features with very narrow use-cases. If there's a reasonable way for users to provide corner-case functionality for themselves (and I'd say a wrapper function is a perfectly reasonable way for this) then we don't really want to embed it in Postgres. This particular feature seems like a seriously-poorly-thought-out one, too. Time stops advancing across the whole DB? Really? 1. That would break all manner of stuff, for example the timestamps in automatically-taken dumps, if you've got background jobs running pg_dump. Just about everything except the session running the test case would be unhappy, AFAICS. 2. Would this extend to, say, preventing autovacuum from running? Or changing the timestamps of messages in the postmaster log, or timestamps appearing in places like pg_stat_activity? Or causing pg_sleep() to wait forever, because time isn't passing? If your answer is "yes" across the board, that makes problem #1 an order of magnitude worse, while if you want to be selective then you have a bunch of nitty-gritty (and rather arbitrary) decisions to make about what's frozen and what's not. And you've weakened the argument that your test is actually valid, since potentially the app would see some of the non-frozen values and misbehave. 3. While I can see the point of wanting to, say, test weekend behavior on a weekday, I do not see how a value of now() that doesn't advance between transactions would represent a realistic test environment for an app with time-dependent behavior. As an example, you might accidentally write code that expects two successive transactions to see identical values of now(), and such a testbed wouldn't detect the problem. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
