Re: 9.1 got really fast ;)

From: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 9.1 got really fast ;)
Date: 2011-10-17 15:25:42
Message-ID: 4E9C48F6.4060809@pinpointresearch.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 10/16/2011 04:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Scott Marlowe<scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer<spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> Total runtime: -2.368 ms<<==== this is amazing ;)
>>> I get something similar when I do select now()-query_start from
>>> pg_stat_activity on my Ubuntu 10.04 / pg 8.3 servers.
>> Within a transaction block that's not surprising, because now() is
>> defined as transaction start time not statement start time.
> No transaction block.
>
Even stand-alone statements take place within a transaction - just not
an explicit one.

Cheers,
Steve

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Evan Walter 2011-10-17 15:26:45 Re: Trying to use binary replication - from tutorial
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-10-17 15:23:19 Re: Mac OS X 10.6 - libpq.dylib vs. libpq.a and PQisthreadsafe()