From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp()
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 09:56:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4268.1538747795@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6406dbd2-5d37-4cb6-6eb2-9c44172c7e7c@postgrespro.ru>
References: <6406dbd2-5d37-4cb6-6eb2-9c44172c7e7c@postgrespro.ru>
Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> Postgres documentation says that |"now()| is a traditional PostgreSQL
> equivalent to |transaction_timestamp()|".
> Also both use the same implementation.
Right.
> But them have different parallel safety property:
That seems like a bug/thinko. I am not sure which property setting is
correct though. It'd only be safe if the parallel-query infrastructure
transfers the relevant timestamp to workers, and I don't know if it does.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru
Subject: Re: now() vs transaction_timestamp()
In-Reply-To: <4268.1538747795@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox