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
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 |
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 |