Horton

Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2018-10-02T08:55:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Advance transaction timestamp for intra-procedure transactions.