Re: [HACKERS] read-only database

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:02:07AM +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> I think the read-only has two meanings for the user.
>
> First is the internal state. XID, OID or something like that.
> In these cases, the internal state mustn't be changed.
> Some users will need the read-only for internal state.
>
> Second is read-only for the user data contents.
> In some cases, the user want to make the user data as read-only.
> For this purpose, the user doesn't care XID or OID, I guess.
>
> So, we can implement them in different way.
> I think both are necessary.

But the second is only a subset of the first, no? So why not just
implement the first? Put another way, why do you think the second is
necessary?

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for
surely where thou typest "foo" someone someday shall type
"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" (5th Commandment for C programmers)