| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures |
| Date: | 2018-09-26 14:07:03 |
| Message-ID: | 23174.1537970823@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:38:25PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> We could certainly address this by adding three or four or five new
>> timestamps that cover all these varieties. But perhaps it's worth
>> asking what these timestamps are useful for and which ones we really need.
> Frankly, we might be fine with just documenting it and see if anyone
> complains.
I'm not for adding a bunch of new action-start timestamps without very
clear use-cases for them, because each one we add means more gettimeday()
overhead that might or might not ever be useful.
I agree that it would be surprising for transaction timestamp to be newer
than statement timestamp. So for now at least, I'd be satisfied with
documenting the behavior.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-09-26 14:11:27 | Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures |
| Previous Message | Michail Nikolaev | 2018-09-26 13:42:59 | Re: txid_status returns NULL for recently commited transactions |