From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Fix document bug regarding read only transactions. |
Date: | 2017-06-15 14:13:00 |
Message-ID: | 31121.1497535980@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Right, but what I think it is comparing is a read-only transaction
>> on the master and a transaction on the standby. The former can do
>> nextval() on temp sequences, the latter can't.
> But we cannot create temp sequences on stanbys in the first place.
> Still do you think there's value to refer to nextval() on temp
> sequences here?
You're right that the statement is irrelevant in the context of what
a standby can or can't do, but what I'm worried about is that someone
will read it and believe that it represents the whole truth about
what read-only master transactions can do. The previous wording was
also irrelevant to the context of a standby, and yet this whole thread
exists because somebody complained that it's an inaccurate description
of the restrictions on such a master transaction. Well, it's still
inaccurate.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-15 14:17:56 | Re: pgsql: Fix problems related to RangeTblEntry members enrname and enrtup |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-15 14:10:10 | Re: pgsql: Fix problems related to RangeTblEntry members enrname and enrtup |