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 <bruce@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 +
