Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What is the use case for a READ ONLY transaction?
>
>> I haven't been able to come up with a good answer. Anyone got a use case
>> for this feature? I know the community didn't implement it for giggles.
>
> No, we implemented it because it's required by the SQL spec.
>
> I'm not too sure about use-cases either. It certainly seems pretty
> useless from a protection standpoint. It might be that some other
> DBMSes like to know about READ ONLY so they can optimize transaction
> processing, but Postgres doesn't care. (We do the equivalent optimization
> by noting at COMMIT time whether you actually made any DB changes,
> which we can determine basically for free by seeing if the xact emitted
> any WAL records ...)
Thank you, that's what I needed.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
