On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 19:18 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > So I was looking for other omissions in utility.c, and I noticed that
> > check_xact_readonly() doesn't reject CLUSTER, REINDEX, or VACUUM.
> > Now the notion of "read only" that we're trying to enforce is pretty
> >
Tom Lane wrote:
So I was looking for other omissions in utility.c, and I noticed that
check_xact_readonly() doesn't reject CLUSTER, REINDEX, or VACUUM.
Now the notion of "read only" that we're trying to enforce is pretty
weak (I think it's effectively "no writes to non-temp tables").
But I can't
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 09:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> So I was looking for other omissions in utility.c, and I noticed that
> check_xact_readonly() doesn't reject CLUSTER, REINDEX, or VACUUM.
> Now the notion of "read only" that we're trying to enforce is pretty
> weak (I think it's effectively "n
Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:41:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I can't see that CLUSTER is a read-only operation even under the
>> weakest definitions, and I'm not seeing the rationale for REINDEX or
>> VACUUM here either.
> CLUSTER, REINDEX, and VA
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:41:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> So I was looking for other omissions in utility.c, and I noticed that
> check_xact_readonly() doesn't reject CLUSTER, REINDEX, or VACUUM.
> Now the notion of "read only" that we're trying to enforce is pretty
> weak (I think it's effective
So I was looking for other omissions in utility.c, and I noticed that
check_xact_readonly() doesn't reject CLUSTER, REINDEX, or VACUUM.
Now the notion of "read only" that we're trying to enforce is pretty
weak (I think it's effectively "no writes to non-temp tables").
But I can't see that CLUSTER i
