| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane *EXTERN* <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FDW for PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2013-02-21 14:31:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20130221143141.GG14586@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-02-21 14:23:35 +0000, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Another thing I was wondering about, but did not change, is that if we're
> > having the remote transaction inherit the local transaction's isolation
> > level, shouldn't it inherit the READ ONLY property as well?
>
> That seems to me like it would be the right thing to do.
I am not 100% convinced of that. There might be valid usecases where a
standby executes queries on the primary that executes that do DML. And
there would be no way out of it I think?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 14:38:57 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-21 14:25:50 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |