On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, as Michael also points out, it's arguably wrong to allow a
> nominally read-only transaction to write data regardless of whether it
> works. In the case of a standby it could be argued that your
> transaction is only read-only because you had no other choice, but
> nonetheless that's how it is marked. I have a feeling that if we
> extend the definition of "read only" to mean "sometimes allow writes",
> we may regret it.
I still have the same feeling. What I am sure of is that this patch is
not the correct way to do things. So I am marking it as returned with
feedback. This is not a rejection from my side, as I think that this
feature could be useful in some cases, but its design needs way more
thoughts.
--
Michael
