From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PgSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BEGIN WORK READ ONLY; |
Date: | 2006-10-14 19:46:34 |
Message-ID: | 20061014194634.GA17544@winnie.fuhr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 03:42:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:35:12AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> What is the use case for a READ ONLY transaction?
>
> > It would be handy for things like pgpool and Continuent, which could
> > reliably distinguish up front the difference between a transaction
> > that can write and one that can safely be sliced up and dispatched to
> > read-only databases.
>
> I don't think that works for PG's interpretation of READ ONLY, though.
> IIRC we let a "read only" transaction create and modify temp tables.
Am I missing something then?
test=> BEGIN READ ONLY;
BEGIN
test=> CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE foo (x integer);
ERROR: transaction is read-only
--
Michael Fuhr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | A. Kretschmer | 2006-10-14 19:56:12 | Re: BEGIN WORK READ ONLY; |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-14 19:42:48 | Re: BEGIN WORK READ ONLY; |