Horton

Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Date: 2018-10-02T14:49:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

On 2018-10-02 10:55:56 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 28/09/2018 09:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> That's certainly a good argument.  Note that if we implemented that the
> >> transaction timestamp is advanced inside procedures, that would also
> >> mean that the transaction timestamp as observed in pg_stat_activity
> >> would move during VACUUM, for example.  That might or might not be
> >> desirable.
> > 
> > Attached is a rough implementation.
> > 
> > I'd be mildly in favor of doing this, but we have mentioned tradeoffs in
> > this thread.
> 
> So do we want to do this or not?

Without having reviewed the patch yet, yes, I'd say we want this.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Commits

  1. Advance transaction timestamp for intra-procedure transactions.