On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alban Hertroys <haram...@gmail.com> writes: >> On 17 October 2011 17:25, Steve Crawford <scrawf...@pinpointresearch.com> >> wrote: >>> Even stand-alone statements take place within a transaction - just not an >>> explicit one. > >> I doubt that more than 2.368 ms passed between the start of a >> transaction and the stand-alone statement it's wrapping though. Not >> impossible, but clock skew seems more likely to me. > > We take some pains to ensure that the same gettimeofday reading is used > for both a transaction's start timestamp and the statement timestamp of > its first statement. So I'm not sure what's up with Scott's report. > But in the OP's EXPLAIN case, that's the difference between successive > readings taken within the EXPLAIN code, so it's hard to see how to > explain it in any other way than "your system clock went backwards". > Possibly the underlying cause is clock skew between different processors > on a multiprocessor machine?
Could be. That machine has 48 AMD 61xx series cores in it. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
