From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Read-only transactions |
Date: | 2003-01-07 20:57:55 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0301072147300.29178-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> Where are you planning to check this?
In general, I'm trying to align it like a (self-imposed) permission check.
For the query-like statements I'm looking at ExecCheckRTPerms(). (That
also handles EXECUTE and EXPLAIN most easily.) Utility statements have a
check in tcop/utility.c, COPY does it in DoCopy() (out of convenience).
In any case you don't pay more than a 'if (XactReadOnly && ...)' if it's
not activated.
> As such it's not clear to me why vacuum and checkpoint are included in
> the forbidden list. They don't logically change any data. The same
> might be said of reindex.
You're right. I'll allow that class of statements.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-01-07 20:58:33 | Re: IPv6 patch |
Previous Message | Francisco Figueiredo Jr. | 2003-01-07 20:45:20 | Re: [Npgsql-general] Get function OID and function calling support |