Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great
Date
Msg-id 20200114184657.GV3195@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Speaking of sensible progress, I think we've drifted off on a tangent
> > here about ALTER SYSTEM.
>
> Agreed, that's not terribly relevant for the proposed patch.

I agree that the proposed patch seems alright by itself, as the changes
it's making to existing behavior seem to all be bug-fixes and pretty
clear improvements not really related to 'read-only' transactions.

It's unfortunate that we haven't been able to work through to some kind
of agreement around what "SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY" means, so that
users of it can know what to expect.

Thanks,

Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: doc: vacuum full, fillfactor, and "extra space"