Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoZecaGCK+K1siss8mu81-H92SaknfnV2rZjQfMZcsPEug@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Ответы Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:46 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Speaking of sensible progress, I think we've drifted off on a tangent
> > > here about ALTER SYSTEM.
> >
> > Agreed, that's not terribly relevant for the proposed patch.
>
> I agree that the proposed patch seems alright by itself, as the changes
> it's making to existing behavior seem to all be bug-fixes and pretty
> clear improvements not really related to 'read-only' transactions.

There seems to be no disagreement on this point, so I have committed the patch.

> It's unfortunate that we haven't been able to work through to some kind
> of agreement around what "SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY" means, so that
> users of it can know what to expect.

I at least feel like we have a pretty good handle on what it was
intended to mean; that is, "doesn't cause semantically significant
changes to pg_dump output." I do hear some skepticism as to whether
that's the best definition, but it has pretty good explanatory power
relative to the current state of the code, which is something.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alexey Kondratov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Physical replication slot advance is not persistent
Следующее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great