Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20186.1033739682@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ("Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> Note also, that a typical SELECT only session would not advance
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP at all in the typical "autocommit off" mode that
> the Spec is all about.
True, but the spec also says to default to serializable transaction
mode. So in a single-transaction session like you are picturing,
the successive SELECTs would all see a frozen snapshot of the database.
Freezing CURRENT_TIMESTAMP goes right along with that, and in fact makes
a lot of sense, because it tells you exactly what time your snapshot
of the database state was taken.
This line of thought opens another can of worms: should the behavior
of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP depend on serializable vs. read-committed mode?
Maybe SetQuerySnapshot is the routine that ought to capture the
"statement-start-time" timestamp value. We could define
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as the time of the active database snapshot.
Or at least offer a fourth parameter to that parameterized now() to
return this time.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: