From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com |
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 15:20:30 |
Message-ID: | 4114.1187277630@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> so - as you can see in one query, the value changes in plpgsql. and i need some
> id that will be unchanged within one end-user-supplied query.
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 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?)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | madhtr | 2007-08-16 15:21:45 | Re: pqlib in c++: PQconnectStart PQconnectPoll |
Previous Message | Rainer Bauer | 2007-08-16 15:20:13 | Re: Yet Another COUNT(*)...WHERE...question |