| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: time stops within transaction |
| Date: | 2000-10-19 03:48:09 |
| Message-ID: | 39EE6EF9.5B0A4C89@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> writes:
> >> Consider statement boundaries in an SQL function --- the
> >> function is probably being called from some outer statement, so
> >> advancing now() within the function would violate the spec constraint
> >> with respect to the outer statement.
> > Postgres doesn't have an idea of what a 'top-level' statement is? I.E.
> > statement as submitted by a client (libpq)?
>
> There's never been any reason to make such a distinction.
There's already a distinction.
Snapshot is made per top-level statement and functions/subqueries
use the same snapshot as that of top-level statement.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-19 04:02:56 | Re: Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug |
| Previous Message | Travis Bauer | 2000-10-19 03:45:52 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_connect error |