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