From: | Steve Baldwin <steve(dot)baldwin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Transaction prevention |
Date: | 2020-07-30 00:50:33 |
Message-ID: | CAKE1AiaMM-W9b+JAnpeF12MoG0YO1O1oP61fBU2KzMUmG9dgZA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks Tom. The idle_in_transaction_session_timeout could work well, but it
seems to be just a default that can be overridden by a user post-login (or
am I missing something?). I'm thinking of setting lock_timeout as part of
the migration process so it will fail if it is unable to obtain a lock in a
'reasonable' amount of time. I wonder what other folks do?
Cheers,
Steve
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:23 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Steve Baldwin <steve(dot)baldwin(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > If I have a user that is restricted to select access (only) on a single
> > table, is there any way to prevent that user from starting a transaction?
>
> No, but maybe setting statement_timeout and/or
> idle_in_transaction_session_timeout for that user would be helpful
> (cf ALTER USER ... SET ...).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-30 01:10:13 | Re: Transaction prevention |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-30 00:23:34 | Re: Transaction prevention |