Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:23:58PM +0200, Daniel Verite wrote:
> 	Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > I agree that it would be surprising for transaction timestamp to be newer
> > than statement timestamp. 
> 
> To me it's more surprising to start a new transaction and having
> transaction_timestamp() still pointing at the start of a previous 
> transaction.
> This feels like a side-effect of being spawned by a procedure,
> and an exception to what transaction_timestamp() normally means
> or meant until now.
> 
> OTOH transaction_timestamp() being possibly newer than
> statement_timestamp() seems like a normal consequence of
> transactions being created intra-statement.

Yes, that is a good point.  My thought has always been that statements
are inside of transactions, but the opposite is now possible.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +