On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 13:50 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The documentation talks about setting and checking
> default_transaction_read_only, but I think it doesn't say anything
> about
> transaction_read_only, which I find odd. This in particular:
>
> > Users will be able to tell whether their session is read-only by
> > + issuing SHOW default_transaction_read_only
>
> seems misleading, as you might have default_transaction_read_only=on,
> but still be able to do "SET transaction_read_only", so the *session*
> isn't necessarily read-only.
Yes, clearly missing a check there. Those two operations should be
blocked at higher level, using PreventCommandDuringRecovery() and I
confess that I thought they already were. Doesn't crash because of the
other checks in place, but gives wrong error message.
Thanks for penetration testing the patch.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
