| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Is anything preventing us from allowing write to foreign tables from standby? |
| Date: | 2017-11-29 02:07:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSv4h3CxggSiiwHjjMHzkKMJrq1idcJB7xj2tL-gKtR_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> However, as Michael also points out, it's arguably wrong to allow a
> nominally read-only transaction to write data regardless of whether it
> works. In the case of a standby it could be argued that your
> transaction is only read-only because you had no other choice, but
> nonetheless that's how it is marked. I have a feeling that if we
> extend the definition of "read only" to mean "sometimes allow writes",
> we may regret it.
I still have the same feeling. What I am sure of is that this patch is
not the correct way to do things. So I am marking it as returned with
feedback. This is not a rejection from my side, as I think that this
feature could be useful in some cases, but its design needs way more
thoughts.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-29 02:09:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Causal reads take II |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-29 02:05:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Statement-level rollback |