| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions? |
| Date: | 2003-12-01 18:59:50 |
| Message-ID: | 200312011059.50578.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce,
> This seems like a valuable feature, as others have mentioned. However,
> should it also prevent changes to default_transaction_read_only?
>
> What is the use case for this functionality?
I thought that this was rejected thouroughly by Tom some months ago. He
argued pretty strongly that READ ONLY transactions were *not* a security
feature and that trying to make them one would work very poorly.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-12-01 19:04:31 | Re: OSS Projects WAS: Call from Info World |
| Previous Message | Robert Bernier | 2003-12-01 17:59:27 | Re: BSDCan 2004 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-01 19:12:46 | Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-01 18:32:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-01 19:10:14 | Re: export FUNC_MAX_ARGS as a read-only GUC variable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-01 18:54:47 | Re: export FUNC_MAX_ARGS as a read-only GUC variable (was: [GENERAL] SELECT Question) |