On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 04:38:53PM -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote: > 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.
I am not a fan of backpatching any of this. We have learned the fix is more complex than thought, and the risk of breakage and having pg_dump diffs change between minor releases doesn't seem justified. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
