| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 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>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures |
| Date: | 2018-10-02 08:55:56 |
| Message-ID: | 4ff8e6a2-c585-02fe-3f20-b9aa26fa2c4f@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28/09/2018 09:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That's certainly a good argument. Note that if we implemented that the
>> transaction timestamp is advanced inside procedures, that would also
>> mean that the transaction timestamp as observed in pg_stat_activity
>> would move during VACUUM, for example. That might or might not be
>> desirable.
>
> Attached is a rough implementation.
>
> I'd be mildly in favor of doing this, but we have mentioned tradeoffs in
> this thread.
So do we want to do this or not?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-10-02 09:35:29 | Re: Slotification of partition tuple conversion |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-10-02 08:28:26 | Re: Tuple conversion naming |