On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:23:58PM +0200, Daniel Verite wrote: > 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.
Yes, that is a good point. My thought has always been that statements are inside of transactions, but the opposite is now possible. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
