Hi,
On 2018-10-02 10:55:56 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 28/09/2018 09:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> That's certainly a good argument. Note that if we implemented that the
> >> transaction timestamp is advanced inside procedures, that would also
> >> mean that the transaction timestamp as observed in pg_stat_activity
> >> would move during VACUUM, for example. That might or might not be
> >> desirable.
> >
> > Attached is a rough implementation.
> >
> > I'd be mildly in favor of doing this, but we have mentioned tradeoffs in
> > this thread.
>
> So do we want to do this or not?
Without having reviewed the patch yet, yes, I'd say we want this.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
