Re: gettime() - a timeofday() alternative

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: gettime() - a timeofday() alternative
Date: 2005-08-17 22:17:50
Message-ID: 20044.1124317070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 06:24:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> IIRC, what we actually intended that to mean is the time of receipt of
>>> the current interactive command --- that is, it gets set in the
>>> postgres.c outer loop, not anywhere in the parser/etc path. Otherwise
>>> there's not a unique answer (consider statements issued inside SQL
>>> functions for instance).

>> Would it be reasonable to add one more timestamp that works the same
>> inside and outside a function? In either case, can anyone think of a
>> less-ambiguous name for timestamp_statement?

> timestamp_client_statement? That highlights it is when the client sends
> the statement.

timestamp_command, maybe, would convey the right image.

(I don't think we need yet a fourth flavor of this, nor do I see anything
about it that "works differently inside and outside a function".)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-08-17 22:20:43 Re: SHM_LOCK under Linux ... do we use this?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-08-17 22:08:54 Re: gettime() - a timeofday() alternative

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Johnny C. Lam 2005-08-17 23:14:20 Re: pthread stack on FreeBSD WAS: HEAD doesn't cope with
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-08-17 22:08:54 Re: gettime() - a timeofday() alternative