On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 2:39 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Here is a new version of the patch where I added a comment for a new
> function, fixed indentation, and added the commit message. If there
> are no objections, I will push this as a master-only fix, as noted in
> the commit message.
Pushed a
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 5:50 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Attached is an updated version of the patch.
Here is a new version of the patch where I added a comment for a new
function, fixed indentation, and added the commit message. If there
are no objections, I will push this as a master-only fix, as
On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 9:30 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> As read-only
> subtransactions can’t change to read-write, and a read-only
> main-transaction can’t change to read-write after first snapshot,
> either (note: begin_remote_xact is called after it), all we need to do
> is track the nesting level
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 7:14 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 1:25 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 4:01 PM Etsuro Fujita
> > wrote:
> > > In the patch I also fixed a bug; I trusted XactReadOnly to see if the
> > > local transaction is READ ONLY, but I not
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 1:25 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 4:01 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > In the patch I also fixed a bug; I trusted XactReadOnly to see if the
> > local transaction is READ ONLY, but I noticed that that is not 100%
> > correct, because a transaction which s
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 4:01 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>
> In the patch I also fixed a bug; I trusted XactReadOnly to see if the
> local transaction is READ ONLY, but I noticed that that is not 100%
> correct, because a transaction which started as READ WRITE can show as
> READ ONLY later within sub
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:51 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:14 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > postgres_fdw opens remote transactions in read/write mode in a local
> > transaction even if the local transaction is read-only. I noticed
> > that this leads to surprising behavior lik
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 4:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:14 PM Etsuro Fujita
> > wrote:
> >> To avoid that, I would like to propose a server option,
> >> inherit_read_only, to open the remote transactions in read-only mode
> >> if the local transactio
Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:14 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> To avoid that, I would like to propose a server option,
>> inherit_read_only, to open the remote transactions in read-only mode
>> if the local transaction is read-only.
> Why do we need a server option. Either we sa
Hi Fujita-san,
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:14 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> postgres_fdw opens remote transactions in read/write mode in a local
> transaction even if the local transaction is read-only. I noticed
> that this leads to surprising behavior like this:
>
> CREATE TABLE test (a in
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 12:44 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Attached is a small patch for these options. I will add this to the
> March commitfest as it is still open.
The CF was changed to in-progress just before, so I added it to the next CF.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Hi,
postgres_fdw opens remote transactions in read/write mode in a local
transaction even if the local transaction is read-only. I noticed
that this leads to surprising behavior like this:
CREATE TABLE test (a int);
CREATE FUNCTION testfunc() RETURNS int LANGUAGE SQL AS 'INSERT INTO
public.test
12 matches
Mail list logo
