On Mon, 2025-07-14 at 13:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > > Ok. That explains why "statement_timestamp() and transaction_timestamp() > > return the same value during the first command of a transaction," isn't > > just stating the obvious. transaction_timestamp() literally returns the > > value statement_timestamp(). > > Right. I'm tempted to be more explicit about that, along the lines of > > <function>statement_timestamp()</function> and > <function>transaction_timestamp()</function> > - return the same value during the first statement of a transaction, but > might > - differ during subsequent statements. > + return the same value during the first statement of a transaction, > + because the transaction timestamp is set by copying the statement > + timestamp when a new transaction starts. > > I didn't include that change below though; perhaps it has too much > whiff of implementation detail. > > > I'm fine with this entire section assuming/stating that extended protocol > > is in effect and that 53.2.2.1 explains how these behave when executing a > > multi-statement simple protocol "script". > > It's incorrect to claim that this only applies to extended protocol, > and besides I thought you didn't want to mention protocol details > here. I can't argue with documenting it in the protocol chapter > though. So about like this?
+1 This thread doesn't look like we're going to find a wording that will make everyone happy, but I believe that this patch is a clear improvement. Quite contrary to David, I would have liked the word "protocol" with the message, because it gives me personally the right idea, but I am fine with "message" alone. After all, a message in PostgreSQL jargon is a protocol message. Yours, Laurenz Albe
