From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: how to get id of currently executed query? |
Date: | 2007-08-16 17:21:21 |
Message-ID: | 20070816172120.GA6478@depesz.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 11:20:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAIR, the only state that's guaranteed to work like that is
> statement_timestamp. Of course you have to worry whether your machine
> is fast enough to do more than one client interaction within whatever
> the clock resolution is.
i'll check it, thanks for tip.
> I think the real question here is why you want this behavior at all;
> to me it smells of not having thought the problem through correctly.
> As an example of why this bothers me: what if the user's query is
> rewritten into several queries by a RULE? Should you consider each
> of those to be a separate user-issued SQL command? Does your answer
> change if you know that the user himself prepared the RULE? (Do you
> think users will be happy if statement X followed by statement Y
> acts differently in a rule than elsewhere?)
definitelly. i need this only for some specific functions operating
within selects. i'll blog it as soon as i'll get all the details :)
depesz
--
quicksil1er: "postgres is excellent, but like any DB it requires a
highly paid DBA. here's my CV!" :)
http://www.depesz.com/ - blog dla ciebie (i moje CV)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Gunther | 2007-08-16 17:27:52 | automatic rollback? |
Previous Message | Rodrigo De León | 2007-08-16 17:15:19 | Re: Function with Integer array parameter |