Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great
Date: 2020-01-14 18:46:57
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Speaking of sensible progress, I think we've drifted off on a tangent
> > here about ALTER SYSTEM.
> Agreed, that's not terribly relevant for the proposed patch.

I agree that the proposed patch seems alright by itself, as the changes
it's making to existing behavior seem to all be bug-fixes and pretty
clear improvements not really related to 'read-only' transactions.

It's unfortunate that we haven't been able to work through to some kind
of agreement around what "SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY" means, so that
users of it can know what to expect.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2020-01-14 19:12:41 Re: doc: vacuum full, fillfactor, and "extra space"
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-01-14 18:43:11 Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible