Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures
Date: 2018-10-05 11:28:54
Message-ID: 38e36919-8bee-c717-be99-91137ad28aaf@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/10/2018 16:58, Andres Freund wrote:
> It's a bit weird to make this decision based on these two timestamps
> differing. For one, it only indirectly seems to be guaranteed that
> xactStartTimestamp is even set to anything here (to 0 by virtue of being
> a global var).

Maybe but it seems to be the simplest way without doing major surgery to
all this code.

Attached is an updated patch with a test case.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Advance-transaction-timestamp-in-intra-procedure-.patch text/plain 3.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Banck 2018-10-05 11:38:05 Re: TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums
Previous Message 'Christoph Moench-Tegeder' 2018-10-05 11:06:42 Re: Function for listing archive_status directory