| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2018-10-02 14:49:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20181002144901.mft2wjuwqujryx4p@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-10-02 10:55:56 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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?
Without having reviewed the patch yet, yes, I'd say we want this.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-02 14:53:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Improve OR conditions on joined columns (common star schema problem) |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2018-10-02 14:39:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Improve OR conditions on joined columns (common star schema problem) |