On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:34:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:12:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > Isn't the point that transaction_timestamp() does *not* currently change > > its value, even though the transaction (although not the outermost > > statement) has finished? > > Ouch, yes. I see the point now. Indeed that's strange to not have a > new transaction timestamp after commit within the DO block..
So, this puts us in an odd position. Right now everyone knows that statement_timestamp() is only changed by the outer statement, i.e., a SELECT in a function doesn't change statement_timestamp(). So, there is an argument that transaction_timestamp() should do the same and not change in a function --- in fact, if it does change, it would mean that transaction_timestamp() changes in a function, but statement_timestamp() doesn't --- that seems very odd. It would mean that new statements in a function don't change statement_timestamp(), but new transctions in a function do --- again, very odd. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@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 +
