| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great |
| Date: | 2020-01-09 20:38:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobj=fYN1AsTtsc0Ypf9JAAs94YtywbhXqVP-4wrBH-HLA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:37 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > You could argue about exactly how to extend that to non-spec
> > utility commands, but for the most part allowing them seems
> > to make sense if DML is allowed.
>
> But I think we allow them on all tables, not just temp tables, so I
> don't think I understand this argument.
Oh, wait: I'm conflating two things. The current behavior extends the
spec behavior to COPY in a logical way.
But it also allows CLUSTER, REINDEX, and VACUUM on any table. The spec
presumably has no view on that, nor does the passage you quoted seem
to apply here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-09 20:52:01 | Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-01-09 20:37:23 | Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great |