Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

This patch doesn't apply over 07ee62ce9. Also, I like the
timestamp-comparison approach even less than Andres does: I think it's
probably outright broken, especially since it treats the equality case
as license to advance xactStartTimestamp.

Surely there is some way that we can directly test whether we're inside a
procedure or not? I think the logic should be basically

if (!IsParallelWorker())
+ {
+ if (!InsideProcedure())
xactStartTimestamp = stmtStartTimestamp;
+ else
+ xactStartTimestamp = GetCurrentTimestamp();
+ }
else
Assert(xactStartTimestamp != 0);

regards, tom lane