| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
| Date: | 2016-11-17 02:56:32 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F6413FF@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
> Hmm, let's go back to the JDBC method, then. "show transaction_read_only"
> will return true on a standby, but presumably also on any other non-writable
> node. You could even force it to be true artificially if you wanted to
> force traffic off of a node, using ALTER {SYSTEM|USER ...|DATABASE ..} SET
> default_transaction_read_only = on
>
> I think that would address Alvaro's concern, and it's nicer anyway if libpq
> and JDBC are doing the same thing.
If you prefer consistency between libpq and JDBC, then we could correct JDBC. People here should know the server state well, and be able to figure out a good specification.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-17 02:57:27 | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-11-17 02:54:09 | Re: Document how to set up TAP tests for Perl 5.8.8 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-17 02:57:27 | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
| Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2016-11-17 02:49:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |