Josh Berkus wrote:
> I, for one, would judge that the start time of the statement is "during the
> execution"; it would only NOT be "during the execution" if it was a value
> *before* the start time of the statement. It's a semantic argument.
>
> The spec is, IMHO, rather vague on how this would relate to transactions. I
> do not find it at all inconsitent that Bruce, Thomas, and co. interpreted a
> transaction to be an extension of an individual SQL statement for this
> purpose (at least, that's what I guess they did).
>
> Thus, if you accept the postulates that:
> 1) "During" a SQL statement includes the start time of the statement, and
> 2) A Transaction is the equivalent of a single SQL statement for many
> purposes,
> Then the current behavior is a logical conclusion.
>
> Further, we could not change that behaviour without breaking many people's
> applications.
I don't see how we can defend returning the start of the transaction as
the current_timestamp. In a multi-statement transaction, that doesn't
seem very current to me. I know there are some advantages to returning
the same value for all queries in a transaction, but is that value worth
returning such stale time information?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073