On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 5:14 PM Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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?
I'm fine with the initial proposal. I think showing whether the connected
server is a primary or standby in the prompt would be helpful when managing
multiple servers. OTOH, I'm not sure how useful it would be to display
whether the current transaction is read-only.
That said, this is just my view, so I'd like to hear what others think.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
