> But the second is only a subset of the first, no? So why not just
> implement the first? Put another way, why do you think the second is
> necessary?
Because there is "default_transaction_read_only" option and
implementation.
My implementation is an extension of the existing option.
I wanted to make the postmaster read-only, and found
"default_transaction_read_only" option, but it can be overwritten.
--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenSource Development Center,
NTT DATA Corp. http://www.nttdata.co.jp/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
