Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Speaking of sensible progress, I think we've drifted off on a tangent
> > here about ALTER SYSTEM.
> 
> Agreed, that's not terribly relevant for the proposed patch.

I agree that the proposed patch seems alright by itself, as the changes
it's making to existing behavior seem to all be bug-fixes and pretty
clear improvements not really related to 'read-only' transactions.

It's unfortunate that we haven't been able to work through to some kind
of agreement around what "SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY" means, so that
users of it can know what to expect.

Thanks,

Stephen