Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <email@example.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The patch as given strikes me as pretty broken --- it does not advance
> >> statement_timestamp when I would expect (AFAICS it only sets it during
> >> transaction start).
> > Uh, it does advance:
> But not once per statement --- in reality, you get a fairly arbitrary
> behavior that will advance in some cases and not others when dealing
> with a multi-statement querystring. Your example showing that it fails
> to advance in a psql -c string shows this ... don't you think most
> people would call that a bug?
I assume RULES should have the same statement_timestamp and I figured my
approach was the only one that would work.
> If it's "statement" timestamp then I think it ought to advance once per
> SQL statement, which this isn't doing. (As I already said, though, that
> isn't the behavior I really want. My point is just that the code's
> behavior is an extremely strange, nonintuitive definition of the word
I suppose so.
> > I have always been confused if
> > statement_timeout times queries inside server-side functions, for
> > example. I don't think it should.
> That's exactly my point; I agree that we don't want it doing that,
> but that being the case, "statement" isn't a great name for the units
> that we are actually processing. We're really wanting to do these
> things once per client command, or maybe per client query would be a
> better name.
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster