Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YGKOqx3MO83ScFAvHpzBFVseGHAh9OHa1KO39Ny42R0vg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby"GUC pseudo-variable.  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby"GUC pseudo-variable.  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby"GUC pseudo-variable.  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 13 April 2017 at 14:59, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> 2. Make transaction_read_only GUC_REPORT
> This is to avoid the added round-trip by SHOW command.  It also benefits client apps that want to know when the
servergets promoted?  And this may simplify the libpq code. 
> I don't understand yet why we need to provide this feature for older servers by using SHOW.  Those who are already
using<= 9.6 in production completed the system or application, and their business is running.  Why would they want to
justreplace libpq and use this feature? 

I think "transaction_read_only" is a bit confusing for something we're
expecting to change under us.

To me, a "read only" xact is one created with

BEGIN READ ONLY TRANSACTION;

.... which I would not expect to become read/write under me, since I
explicitly asked for read-only.

It's more like "session read only" that we're interested in IMO.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Borodin
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Merge join for GiST
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] FDW and parallel execution