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
weak (I
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 see
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 no
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 effectively no
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 VACUUM are
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 is a
