Re: [HACKERS] read-only database

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > It seems server_read_only is the same as default_transaction_read_only
> > except it can't be changed.
>
> I thought the TODO item was for a low-level read-only option, suitable
> for trying to look at a corrupted database or run off a read-only volume.
> This is very far from being that --- it allows temp table creation/use,
> and it still eats transaction IDs so it is certainly not read-only to
> xlog or clog.
>
> I am not sure I see any use case for this implementation: it is
> read-only enough to get in your way, without being read-only enough
> to derive any real benefit.

I am not sure I see the use case either but I developed it so everyone
could look at it and decide if it is useful. When true, it is basically
a unchangable default_transaction_read_only.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073