| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: display hot standby state in psql prompt |
| Date: | 2025-10-27 21:00:01 |
| Message-ID: | aP_dUTvY6a34RqJH@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 09:17:03PM +0100, Jim Jones wrote:
> On 27/10/2025 17:23, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> This was briefly mentioned upthread, but I'm a little concerned that this
>> doesn't respond to commands like SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY. I wonder if we
>> should mark transaction_read_only as GUC_REPORT and use that instead. FWIW
>> I see that we marked search_path as GUC_REPORT somewhat recently (see
>> commit 28a1121).
>
> You're right, it doesn't. I like the idea, but I'm not sure how to
> integrate a transaction-scoped variable into this feature. Would that
> mean we also need to change the reset mechanism for GUC_REPORT variables
> when the transaction ends?
Hm. You're right, that seems to have problems (I'm curious about the use
of stmt->is_local in SetPGVariable() for SET TRANSACTION statements). I
also see some past discussions in this area [0] [1] [2].
[0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/3a40f835-116d-0f95-aede-d5236337bbf0%402ndquadrant.com
[1] https://postgr.es/m/flat/CA%2BTgmoZsHrHeqh5dYpoH%2BWW5EmT-egMGuyrLTsjKz80WajT4tg%40mail.gmail.com
[2] https://postgr.es/m/flat/CAFj8pRBFU-WzzQhNrwRHn67N0Ug8a9-0-9BOo69PPtcHiBDQMA%40mail.gmail.com
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-10-27 21:12:26 | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-10-27 20:42:36 | Re: Optimizing ResouceOwner to speed up COPY |