Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2013-11-22 13:34:18 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Oddly, it didn't complain about creating users within a read-only >> transaction. That seems like a potential bug. > > There's lots of things that escape XactReadOnly. I've thought (and I > think suggested) before that we should put in another layer of defense > by also putting a check in AssignTransactionId(). Imo the compatibility > woes (like not being able to run SELECT txid_current();) are well worth > the nearly ironclad guarantee that we're not writing.
I agree that something like that is would be a good idea; however, I'm sure you would agree that would not be material for a back-patch to a stable branch. Another thing I've mused about is having some way to lock a database to read-only, such that only the owner or a superuser could change that. Another setting which I know some people would like to lock is transaction isolation level. I haven't really thought of a good UI for that sort of thing, though. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers