Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It would be very useful if we had a parameter that controlled whether
> > current_timestamp maps to statement_timestamp or to transaction_timestamp.
> This is a nonstarter, as is the previous proposal to have a single
> function with an explicit parameter that selects the behavior.  The
> reason is that any such function would have to be treated as completely
> non-optimizable.  It's really important that current_timestamp be STABLE
> so that queries like
>       where entrytimestamp >= current_timestamp - '10 minutes'
> can use an index.  This means you can't have options that make it not
> be STABLE.

Oh, I forgot about that.  Peter seems only to want statement_timestamp
and transaction_timestamp.  Aren't those both stable if
statement_timestamp is set from exec_simple_query?

> > The name "clock_timestamp" seems kind of unfortunate.
> Agreed, it's not the best choice.
> > Why is this functionality needed anyway?
> Performance measurements within plpgsql functions, for example.
> I am unconvinced that anyone has really proven the need for
> statement_timestamp, but a cleaner replacement for timeofday()
> would be nice to have.

Yep, and if we say we need that then the GUC option doesn't work because
the certainly will not be stable.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to