Gurjeet Singh writes:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Gurjeet Singh writes:
>>> I ran the following query, and got an unexpected negative value. Does
>>> this imply that SELECT-transaction was able to see a row created by
>>> INSERT-transaction which started after the SELEC
Excerpts from Gurjeet Singh's message of mié jul 07 00:43:32 -0400 2010:
> If you must know, this instance is on a low-cost, hosted, Xen virtual
> machine.
I think Tom diagnosed an issue affecting pgstats as being out of sync
gettimeofday() results on different processes. IIRC this was on a
virt
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh writes:
> > I ran the following query, and got an unexpected negative value. Does
> this
> > imply that SELECT-transaction was able to see a row created by
> > INSERT-transaction which started after the SELECT-transaction?
>
> Was
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh writes:
> > I ran the following query, and got an unexpected negative value. Does
> this
> > imply that SELECT-transaction was able to see a row created by
> > INSERT-transaction which started after the SELECT-transaction?
>
> Was
Gurjeet Singh writes:
> I ran the following query, and got an unexpected negative value. Does this
> imply that SELECT-transaction was able to see a row created by
> INSERT-transaction which started after the SELECT-transaction?
Was the SELECT inside a BEGIN block?
regard
I have an IRC logger storing its data in a Postgres 8.3.3. The table in
question has the interesting column declared as:
time timestamp with time zone default now()
The logger uses a prepared statement to insert data, and does not mention
this column in the INSERT statement, hence the assumption
