Re: 9.1 got really fast ;) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Steve Crawford
Subject Re: 9.1 got really fast ;)
Date
Msg-id 4E9C48F6.4060809@pinpointresearch.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.1 got really fast ;)  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: 9.1 got really fast ;)  (Alban Hertroys <haramrae@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 10/16/2011 04:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  wrote:
>> Scott Marlowe<scott.marlowe@gmail.com>  writes:
>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer<spam_eater@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>>> Total runtime: -2.368 ms<<==== this is amazing ;)
>>> I get something similar when I do select now()-query_start from
>>> pg_stat_activity on my Ubuntu 10.04 / pg 8.3 servers.
>> Within a transaction block that's not surprising, because now() is
>> defined as transaction start time not statement start time.
> No transaction block.
>
Even stand-alone statements take place within a transaction - just not
an explicit one.

Cheers,
Steve


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.6 - libpq.dylib vs. libpq.a and PQisthreadsafe()
Next
From: Evan Walter
Date:
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Trying to use binary replication - from tutorial