Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > 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.
Works for me. > > 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. I think I agree with you regarding the original intent, though even there, as discussed elsewhere, it seems like there's perhaps either a bug or a disagreement about the specifics of what that means when it relates to committing a 2-phase transaction. Still, setting that aside for the moment, do we feel like this is enough to be able to update our documentation with? Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature