Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning

From: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning
Date: 2008-01-17 10:56:48
Message-ID: 478F3470.1020206@phlo.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure what the most convenient user API would be for an on-demand
> hard-read-only mode, but we can't use SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY for it.
> It'd have to be some other syntax. Maybe just use a GUC variable
> instead of bespoke syntax? SET TRANSACTION is really just syntactic
> sugar for GUC SET operations anyway ...

We could reuse the transaction_read_only GUC, adding "strict" as a 3rd
allowed value beside "on" and "off". And maybe make "ansi" an alias for
"on" to emphasize that one behavior is what the standard wants, and the
other is a postgres extension.

regards, Florian Pflug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian G. Pflug 2008-01-17 11:30:36 Re: Postgresql Materialized views
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2008-01-17 09:16:24 Re: to_char incompatibility