Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> Unfortunately, isolation level "serializable" is not truly
> serializable. Usually it is good enough, but when it isn't good
> enough and you need an explicit table lock (a very rare but not
> nonexistent situation), I think it should either lock the table in the
> manner it would do on the primary, or throw an error. I think that
> silently changing the behavior between primary and standby is not a
> good thing.
+1 --- this proposal made me acutely uncomfortable, too.
regards, tom lane
