On 05/28/2013 04:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:39:10PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> On 05/28/2013 03:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>> The other option would be to do it on query execute but that doesn't
>>>> seem as efficient as it would have to be parsed each time. Although
>>>> it would still be better than reading the actual SQL.
>>>
>>> Well, you could do SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY, and that would prevent any
>>> write transactions. You could assume it is a read query, and get the
>>> error and resubmit on the master if that happens, but that sounds
>>> inefficient. I thought you were asking for something where you could
>>> submit a query and it would report back as read/write or read-only.
>>
>> No I am suggesting something that before anything happens with the
>> parser, the protocol knows what is up. So things like pgpool-ii
>> don't even need a parser, it just knows it is a read only query
>> because the protocol says so.
>
> Oh, that is an interesting idea. The application is indicating it is
> read-only via the protocol, and poolers can optimize that. Don't we
> have the ability to pass arbitrary GUC values back through the protocol,
> e.g. transaction_read_only? If not, that might be a way to do this
> cleanly.
>
I don't know but I don't think so. Anything that is calling SET is going
to run through the parser.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
