Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 15:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The current definition of Hot Standby is that it's a *read only*
>> behavior. Not read mostly. What you are proposing is a rather
>> fundamental change in the behavior of HS, and it doesn't seem to me
>> that it should be on the head of anybody else to make it work.
> That's a dangerous precedent you just set.
[ shrug... ] If you have near-term solutions for all the *other*
problems that would be involved (like what XID to put into rows you
insert in the temp tables) then I might think that what you're asking
Robert to do is reasonable. Personally I think non-read-only HS is
entirely pie in the sky, and therefore it's not reasonable to saddle
unrelated development tasks with an expectation that they should work
with a behavior that probably won't ever happen.
regards, tom lane
