Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I see what you are saying now --- that even single user statements can
> > trigger multiple statements, so you would have to say transaction start
> > time is time the user query starts. I can see how that seems a little
> > arbitrary. However, don't we have separate paths for user queries and
> > queries sent as part of a rule?
>
> We could use "time of arrival of the latest client command string",
> if we wanted to do something like this. My point is that that very
> arbitrarily assumes that those are the significant points within a
> transaction, and that the client has no need to send multiple commands
> that want to insert the same timestamp into different tables. This is
> an unwarranted assumption about the client's control structure, IMHO.
>
> A possible compromise is to dissociate now() and current_timestamp,
> allowing the former to be start of transaction and the latter to be
> start of client command.
I was thinking 'transaction_timestamp' for the transaction start time, and
current_timestamp for the statement start time. I would equate now()
with current_timestamp.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073