| From: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PGSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Negative result with (now()-previously_inserted_timestamp) |
| Date: | 2010-07-07 04:43:32 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTilUsmZliAJCXnDm6Rr1d5Xr16s4SPC3a2U-4r0q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I ran the following query, and got an unexpected negative value. Does
> this
> > imply that SELECT-transaction was able to see a row created by
> > INSERT-transaction which started after the SELECT-transaction?
>
> Was the SELECT inside a BEGIN block?
>
No. I have the psql session still open so can confirm that with absolute
confidence.
If you must know, this instance is on a low-cost, hosted, Xen virtual
machine.
By any chance, can we suspect the timer accuracy here? Or possibly an NTP
server foul-play!
Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2010-07-07 05:06:23 | Re: Negative result with (now()-previously_inserted_timestamp) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-07 04:18:01 | Re: Negative result with (now()-previously_inserted_timestamp) |