Re: [HACKERS] Re: Is anything preventing us from allowing write to foreign tables from standby?

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
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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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