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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobj=fYN1AsTtsc0Ypf9JAAs94YtywbhXqVP-4wrBH-HLA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:37 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You could argue about exactly how to extend that to non-spec
> > utility commands, but for the most part allowing them seems
> > to make sense if DML is allowed.
>
> But I think we allow them on all tables, not just temp tables, so I
> don't think I understand this argument.

Oh, wait: I'm conflating two things. The current behavior extends the
spec behavior to COPY in a logical way.

But it also allows CLUSTER, REINDEX, and VACUUM on any table. The spec
presumably has no view on that, nor does the passage you quoted seem
to apply here.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great