Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:25 AM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Well, if the transaction was declared read-only, then committing it
> > (directly or 2PC) shouldn't change anything. This appears to be a
> > circular argument.
>
> I don't think it's a circular argument. Suppose that someone decrees
> that, as of 5pm Eastern time, no more read-write transactions are
> permitted. And because the person issuing the decree has a lot of
> power, everybody obeys. Now, every pg_dump taken after that time will
> be semantically equivalent to every other pg_dump taken after that
> time, with one tiny exception. That exception is that someone could
> still do COMMIT PREPARED of a read-write transaction that was prepared
> before 5pm. If the goal of the powerful person who issued the decree
> was to make sure that the database couldn't change - e.g. so they
> could COPY each table individually without keeping a snapshot open and
> still get a consistent backup - they might fail to achieve it if, as
> of the moment of the freeze, there are some prepared write
> transactions.
>
> I'm not saying we have to change the behavior or anything. I'm just
> saying that there seems to be one, and only one, way to make the
> apparent contents of the database change in a read-only transaction
> right now. And that's a COMMIT PREPARED of a read-write transaction.
Yeah, allowing a read-only transaction to start and then commit a
read-write transaction doesn't seem sensible. I'd be in favor of
changing that.
Thanks,
Stephen
