Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp()
Date
Msg-id 31310.1538888799@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp()  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp()  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 9:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> That's a bit too small ;-) ... one demonstrable problem with it is
>> that the parallel worker will report the wrong xactStartTimestamp
>> to pgstat_report_xact_timestamp(), since you aren't jamming the
>> transmitted value in soon enough.  Also, I found that ParallelWorkerMain
>> executes at least two transactions before it ever gets to the "main"
>> transaction that does real work, and I didn't much care for the fact
>> that those were running with worker-local values of xactStartTimestamp
>> and stmtStartTimestamp.  So I rearranged things a bit to ensure that
>> parallel workers wouldn't generate their own values for either
>> timestamp, and pushed it.

> Currently, we serialize the other transaction related stuff via
> PARALLEL_KEY_TRANSACTION_STATE.   However, this patch has serialized
> xact_ts via PARALLEL_KEY_FIXED which appears okay, but I think it
> would have been easier for future readers of the code if all the
> similar state variables have been serialized by using the same key.

That state is restored at least two transactions too late.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp()
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp()