From: | Chris Angelico <rosuav(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | vinny <vinny(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance question: Commit or rollback? |
Date: | 2011-12-24 12:49:59 |
Message-ID: | CAPTjJmovDdvBygSUCZTM=XeH8Xn9nff1Hk+0BEyGZxrOqsQb0Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:46 PM, vinny <vinny(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
> The actual rollback won't hurt as long as you have not made any
> modificatons to any records. But opening the transaction could have side
> effects for other processes that want to modiy the records that you want
> to protect in your read-only transaction.
>
> How about using a databaseuser that has it's create/update/delete rights
> revoked? That will cause an error if the supposedly read-only routine
> does try to change data.
The readonly-ness of the session is defined based on information
stored in the database, so that would entail the cost of
re-authenticating. Also, we want to minimize debugging time by having
both read-only and read-write access use almost exactly the same code
and DB access, meaning that we should not need to test every module in
every mode.
ChrisA
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shankar Palaniappan | 2011-12-24 12:54:04 | Re: Unable to connect to PostgreSQL server : Could not get socket error status |
Previous Message | vinny | 2011-12-24 12:46:29 | Re: Performance question: Commit or rollback? |