Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > This seems like a valuable feature, as others have mentioned. However,
> > should it also prevent changes to default_transaction_read_only?
> >
> > What is the use case for this functionality?
>
> I thought that this was rejected thouroughly by Tom some months ago. He
> argued pretty strongly that READ ONLY transactions were *not* a security
> feature and that trying to make them one would work very poorly.
I remember something like that, but I thought the patch was the result
of that discussion. Tom?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
