Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B263475CA9 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:33:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0364474E53 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8O0Wq5D008771; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:32:52 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, Manfred Koizar , Aaron Held , Roberto Mello , Neil Conway , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP In-reply-to: <200209240011.g8O0BVL11014@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200209240011.g8O0BVL11014@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:11:26 -0400" Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:32:52 -0400 Message-ID: <8770.1032827572@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200209/282 X-Sequence-Number: 9559 Bruce Momjian writes: > I see what you are saying now --- that even single user statements can > trigger multiple statements, so you would have to say transaction start > time is time the user query starts. I can see how that seems a little > arbitrary. However, don't we have separate paths for user queries and > queries sent as part of a rule? We could use "time of arrival of the latest client command string", if we wanted to do something like this. My point is that that very arbitrarily assumes that those are the significant points within a transaction, and that the client has no need to send multiple commands that want to insert the same timestamp into different tables. This is an unwarranted assumption about the client's control structure, IMHO. A possible compromise is to dissociate now() and current_timestamp, allowing the former to be start of transaction and the latter to be start of client command. regards, tom lane