Tom Lane wrote: > I agree that it would be surprising for transaction timestamp to be newer > than statement timestamp.
To me it's more surprising to start a new transaction and having transaction_timestamp() still pointing at the start of a previous transaction. This feels like a side-effect of being spawned by a procedure, and an exception to what transaction_timestamp() normally means or meant until now. OTOH transaction_timestamp() being possibly newer than statement_timestamp() seems like a normal consequence of transactions being created intra-statement. +1 for transaction_timestamp() and pg_stat_activity being updated to follow intra-procedure transactions. Best regards, -- Daniel Vérité PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org Twitter: @DanielVerite
