| 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: | 1200831362.4255.479.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-01-20 12:37:23 | Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-01-20 12:13:54 | Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning |