Horton

Re: [HACKERS] read-only database

Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus@nttdata.co.jp>

View thread
From: Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus@nttdata.co.jp>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Date: 2005-05-09T03:48:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> But the second is only a subset of the first, no?  So why not just
> implement the first?  Put another way, why do you think the second is
> necessary?

Because there is "default_transaction_read_only" option and
implementation.

My implementation is an extension of the existing option.

I wanted to make the postmaster read-only, and found
"default_transaction_read_only" option, but it can be overwritten.

-- 
NAGAYASU Satoshi <nagayasus@nttdata.co.jp>
OpenSource Development Center,
NTT DATA Corp. http://www.nttdata.co.jp/