Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures

Bruce Momjian  writes:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:38:25PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> We could certainly address this by adding three or four or five new
>> timestamps that cover all these varieties.  But perhaps it's worth
>> asking what these timestamps are useful for and which ones we really need.

> Frankly, we might be fine with just documenting it and see if anyone
> complains.

I'm not for adding a bunch of new action-start timestamps without very
clear use-cases for them, because each one we add means more gettimeday()
overhead that might or might not ever be useful.

I agree that it would be surprising for transaction timestamp to be newer
than statement timestamp.  So for now at least, I'd be satisfied with
documenting the behavior.

			regards, tom lane