On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:46 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@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.
There seems to be no disagreement on this point, so I have committed the patch. > 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. I at least feel like we have a pretty good handle on what it was intended to mean; that is, "doesn't cause semantically significant changes to pg_dump output." I do hear some skepticism as to whether that's the best definition, but it has pretty good explanatory power relative to the current state of the code, which is something. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
