On 10/11/2025 08:30, Fujii Masao wrote:
> If the main goal of this feature is to help users easily determine
> whether they're connected to a primary or a standby,
> seems simply showing whether the server is in hot standby
> should be sufficient. I'm not sure how useful it would be in practice
> to show information based on default_transaction_read_only or
> transaction_read_only.
This "primary" or "standby" approach was actually the initial proposal,
but it evolved after a few reviews. Extending it to use
transaction_read_only and default_transaction_read_only adds real value
to the feature, but doing so requires either:
1. Marking transaction_read_only as GUC_REPORT (controversial and
rejected in the past), or
2. Querying transaction_read_only with SHOW every time the prompt is
displayed within a transaction block (IMO minimal overhead -- but
unconventional?).
Although I lean toward the initial proposal, I can totally live with
either approach, since both would be able to distinguish if a server is
in hot standby or not.
Should we switch back to the initial proposal?
Thanks!
Best, Jim
