Re: ODBC Layer and the now() function - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Pandurangan
Subject Re: ODBC Layer and the now() function
Date
Msg-id 20051205140825.23603.qmail@web33114.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to ODBC Layer and the now() function  (Byrne Kevin-kbyrne01 <kbyrne01@motorola.com>)
List pgsql-general
Hi,

the following link might help you.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/plpgsql-expressions.html

On 12/5/05, Byrne Kevin-kbyrne01 <kbyrne01@motorola.com> wrote: Has anyone seen any strange behaviour as regards the now() function when accessing a db via odbc layer. The behaviour I have seen (which I have mentioned in pervious post) is as follows:

I have a trigger set up on a db - when a row is added to a certain table (say Table A) in my db the trigger calls a function and then the function enters another line in a related table (say Table B). Here's the problem, the first addition to Table A may shows the time of the addition as, for example 19:01:53. This is correct. The second addition, triggered by the first additon, shows a time of say 19:01:10! The addition of the row to Table B uses the now() function to determine the time the new row is added to the table. This should in theory match the time (to within a few milliseconds at least) the first row was added, since the trigger is immediate. However, I am seeing major time differences?

For the first table, Table A, timestamp is obtained using timeofday. As mentioned the second table uses now(). There is a possibility that these two times will differ slightly. However, I do not understand why the time of entry into the second table could be earlier than the first table!? i.e.

Moserver receives the event - timestamps it as 't1'
-- time lapse before moserver computes the transaction and gives it to odbc.
Txn_begin-  now( ) gets frozen to 't2'
Insert - now() should put it as 't2'
Txn_end()- done.

So firstly t2 should always be > t1 and the difference could be a few seconds but I found sometimes t2 < t1!..


---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------
-------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "John D. Burger"
Date:
Subject: Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits
Next
From: Rich Doughty
Date:
Subject: massive performance hit when using "Limit 1"