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.
+1 for transaction_timestamp() and pg_stat_activity being updated
to follow intra-procedure transactions.
Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite