Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning
Date: 2008-01-20 12:16:02
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:56 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> 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.

Sounds OK to me. We need this to be enforced for Hot Standby, though it
seems useful of itself. If we can break down the Hot Standby stuff into
smaller chunks, it will make it easier for everybody to agree.

  Simon Riggs

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-01-20 12:37:23
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-01-20 12:13:54
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group