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 +