From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Additional current timestamp values |
Date: | 2006-03-20 23:05:02 |
Message-ID: | 441F351E.8030203@samurai.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> <function>CURRENT_TIMESTAMP</> might not be the
> transaction start time on other database systems.
> For this reason, and for completeness,
> <function>transaction_timestamp</> is provided.
Well, transaction_timestamp() is even more unlikely to be the
transaction start time on other database systems :) If the user wants
non-standard syntax for getting the timestamp at which the current
transaction began, we already have now().
> One trick is that these should be the same:
>
> test=> SELECT statement_timestamp(), transaction_timestamp();
Should they be? It seems quite reasonable to me that the DBMS begins a
transaction internally (setting transaction_timestamp()), and then a
short while later begins executing the statement submitted by the user,
at which point statement_timestamp() is set.
Perhaps ensuring they are identical for single-statement transactions is
the best behavior, I just don't think this is required behavior.
> And these should be the same:
>
> $ psql -c '
> INSERT INTO t VALUES (statement_timestamp());
> INSERT INTO t VALUES (statement_timestamp());' test
> INSERT 0 1
Uh, why should these be the same?
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2006-03-20 23:13:45 | Re: Additional current timestamp values |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-03-20 23:02:06 | Re: Additional current timestamp values |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-20 23:13:10 | Re: Removal of backward-compatibility docs mentions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-03-20 23:03:10 | Re: Removal of backward-compatibility docs mentions |