Hi, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Hot Standby returns ERRCODE_READ_ONLY_SQL_TRANSACTION in most cases >> for illegal actions on a standby. > > I don't think I like this patch: you are promoting what are and ought to > be very low-level internal sanity checks into user-facing errors (which > among other things will require translation effort for the messages).
So it seems the last-9-2-CF deadline is making us a little too hasty. Apparently as you're saying there's no way to exercise that code paths from an SQL connection on a Hot Standby short of deploying a C coded extension calling either GetNewTransactionId() or XLogInsert(), which means it's out of scope. My quest was figuring out if ERRCODE_READ_ONLY_SQL_TRANSACTION really is trustworthy as a signal that you could transparently now redirect the transaction to the master when seeing that in a “proxy” of some sort. I felt that we were missing something simple here, but after review I think we finally have all the pieces to achieve that with current 9.2 code base in fact. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
