Re: restrict global access to be readonly

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, happy times <guangzhouzhang(at)qq(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "funnyxj(dot)fxj" <funnyxj(dot)fxj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, "dingqi(dot)lxb" <dingqi(dot)lxb(at)taobao(dot)com>
Subject: Re: restrict global access to be readonly
Date: 2015-02-16 01:03:46
Message-ID: 54E141F2.1020208@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/14/15 7:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another possibility that would be attractive for replication-related
> use-cases would be "nothing that generates WAL thank you very much".

This would be useful, as it essentially simulates a hot standby.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2015-02-16 01:16:34 Re: Really bad blowups with hash outer join and nulls
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-02-16 00:59:13 Re: New CF app deployment