| From: | Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] read-only database |
| Date: | 2005-05-09 03:48:02 |
| Message-ID: | 427EDD72.5080806@nttdata.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> But the second is only a subset of the first, no? So why not just
> implement the first? Put another way, why do you think the second is
> necessary?
Because there is "default_transaction_read_only" option and
implementation.
My implementation is an extension of the existing option.
I wanted to make the postmaster read-only, and found
"default_transaction_read_only" option, but it can be overwritten.
--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>
OpenSource Development Center,
NTT DATA Corp. http://www.nttdata.co.jp/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-05-09 03:48:10 | Re: pl/pgsql enabled by default |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-05-09 03:41:38 | Re: [PATCHES] Cleaning up unreferenced table files |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2005-05-09 03:52:35 | Re: [HACKERS] read-only database |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-05-09 03:41:38 | Re: [PATCHES] Cleaning up unreferenced table files |