Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Date
Msg-id 200210041704.g94H4TM21962@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP  ("Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paesold wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> > > Note also, that a typical SELECT only session would not advance
> > > CURRENT_TIMESTAMP at all in the typical "autocommit off" mode that
> > > the Spec is all about.
> >
> > True, but the spec also says to default to serializable transaction
> > mode.  So in a single-transaction session like you are picturing,
> > the successive SELECTs would all see a frozen snapshot of the database.
> > Freezing CURRENT_TIMESTAMP goes right along with that, and in fact makes
> > a lot of sense, because it tells you exactly what time your snapshot
> > of the database state was taken.
> >
> > This line of thought opens another can of worms: should the behavior
> > of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP depend on serializable vs. read-committed mode?
> > Maybe SetQuerySnapshot is the routine that ought to capture the
> > "statement-start-time" timestamp value.  We could define
> > CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as the time of the active database snapshot.
> > Or at least offer a fourth parameter to that parameterized now() to
> > return this time.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> 
> That is a very good point. At least with serializable transactions it seems
> perfectly reasonable to return a frozen CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. What do you think
> about read-commited level? Can time be commited? ;-)
> It would be even more surprising to new users if the implementation of
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP would depend on trx serialization level.

Yes, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP changing based on transaction serializable/read
commited would be quite confusing.  Also, because our default is read
committed, we would end up with CURRENT_TIMESTAMP being statement level,
which actually does give us a logical place to allow CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
to change, but I thought people voted against that.

However, imagine a query that used CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in the WHERE clause
to find items that were not in the future.  Would a CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
test in a multi-statement transaction want to check based on transaction
start, or on the tuples visible at the time the statement started?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Return of INSTEAD rules
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching