Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great

--NCBmuF+Juv319CRS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Tom Lane ([email protected]) wrote:
> Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> > Speaking of sensible progress, I think we've drifted off on a tangent
> > here about ALTER SYSTEM.
>=20
> Agreed, that's not terribly relevant for the proposed patch.

I agree that the proposed patch seems alright by itself, as the changes
it's making to existing behavior seem to all be bug-fixes and pretty
clear improvements not really related to 'read-only' transactions.

It's unfortunate that we haven't been able to work through to some kind
of agreement around what "SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY" means, so that
users of it can know what to expect.

Thanks,

Stephen

--NCBmuF+Juv319CRS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJeHgyhAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVOqIP/RV/MGOWQCIHSXd9zMLw1rJF
yR2ZIa0cb/TB//y/UQfywOZzk+Q4p9erdsU63qIVMp8CanPLVKXEcBjrtUVqP5yY
rW7FCnGANVwcDcmUdTPbc1kbg/N5VuwG1lYOa8QSi2YFfs5rAazXovEmi0uGdUiN
m2my7gm2ulZwXCWkw1FtYgri73Mec867tXQPeiJCl7hXMDvnALoT8bp2k1vy3meh
V/d9FMsVYG848xK8NH28Yz4ydtJpJ5m3wxSOuSkJvBpVgA/nNp8IfR3Ci/0wL/Md
rByaiHgUI+7uhEItUm54Js02Xp0yCjGgThIvzcmI5c/uROy4jRhMFXcYKh8QoF0a
NYdgxK/gf/+9+7IyMQy2CzFmfmQiUZu6ONCmq/TjmCcF3R1tpjsIvQGbH+0Wyk0v
GbMx6Ep4q9/3AZFodbMmDZbaSI5asMiETAVRhUjv5WpVBeeVZRFkJ5Dop7pFWadY
wZPsvQY5yXl63u5tGKJKMXmqNB+5S7jSS+8lGGQeMWvZSO9f4qch4NTUCRQyGYnY
RbbVCn44PwckceopFyaeeJMTrhsx5gD4/6n2sD3/X1phQFg4kytn88zfOhXGW7SE
DSHSmlCC/Pd+wR9lJzjlHalm5A+XiBh7bJD2CwC9UBQ1x6D7cv7RfNFT6ff+XPXB
YCcpRg9kAeZui5c5ii1R
=PWYi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NCBmuF+Juv319CRS--