| From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
|---|---|
| To: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, Elaine Lindelef <eel(at)cognitivity(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timestamp weirdness |
| Date: | 2002-02-01 05:43:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20020201134344.013a8580@192.228.128.13 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
At 04:14 AM 01-02-2002 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>...
>> The oid correctly reflects the order of the insertion of the rows...
>> but look at the timestamp - the last row has a timestamp _2 minutes
>> before_ the previous row. How could this be happening? We know row
>> 69719 was inserted _after_ 69718, by probably about 30 seconds.
>
>The timestamp provided as a result of evaluating 'now' is the time of
>the start of the transaction, not the instantaneous wall clock time (if
>you want the latter there is a function to provide it).
>
>So, the times will reflect the time the transaction was started, while
>the OID will reflect the order in which the insert/update actually
>happened within the transaction.
Do postgresql backends still preallocate ranges of OIDs?
Link.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arsalan Zaidi | 2002-02-01 06:14:18 | Strange JDBC error mesg |
| Previous Message | Syd Alsobrook | 2002-02-01 04:34:18 | Re: System commands |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-01 14:45:39 | Re: timestamp weirdness |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-01 05:28:41 | Re: Per-database and per-user GUC settings |